Chasing ... Cutting

[jill]

Hi. Interesting, well it must be something, since I have been lurking on
this list for years now and can form a list of pynchon's intentions right
here. laughter erupting out there I hope.

1) he intends to write a body of works that read into one another and
support each other so that the reader is compelled to read each one. 

2) he intends for us to share for a moment his own axes that he grinds, in
his own special way he doesn't tell us exactly, he obscures things. It
would be boring if he just came out and told us.  but allows us to cut and
chase hundreds of topics. here are a few:  
  
-  Are we cut off from nature yet also cut off from God? Sometimes? He
repeats but in an asking way to us: we are in bondage to sin and cannot
free ourselves? What some will resort to to break this cycle is presented
in his literature.

-  Examine closely who you work for, who they work for, who is in "control"
of things--Be aware, but watch out for paranoia, try to see the butterfly
in the rorshach, not the wolf.

-  Don't expect a boundary to protect or fix things, we can't live in a
vacuum, if we try it may destroy our humanity. 

-  Try to find out why we need or want to measure and discover the
dimensions and reactions of everything that is the world, yet, when you do,
does it cause a loss of some better alternatives? Learn math and physics.
Yet  the more educated you become about things, the more you'll feel like a
luddite.

just a few. yes i like discussing Thomas Pynchon's intentions. And I
certainly hope he doesn't tell us what he intends. It goes against all the
things he has intended, above. 







Paul Mackin wrote:
> 
> 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. :-)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >