V. (Ch 3) Impersonations and Dreams

[Paul Mackin]

I agree the words quoted from the introduction to STONE JUNCTION are not
ironic.  Rather, to me the sense is fanciful.  Like "resurrection of the body"
appearing elswhere in  p-text. Not approaching  in any way a religious hope--in
that sense in which the  "resurrection of the body" is an article of faith for
Christians.  More like a "what if." Or an "if only." But, hey, I'll freely admit I'm

pretty terrible in the realm of spirituality. Monistic materialism is too thoroughly

ingrained. Perhaps I will have a deathbed conversion but right now its hard to
imagine.

Enjoyed your reply..

                P.

Lorentzen / Nicklaus wrote:

> Paul Mackin schrieb:
>
> > Please excuse a poor nonreader of Eddins from treading into waters he knows
> > not of, but is anyone saying that late Pynchon believes himself to be in
> > possession of esoteric knowledge acquired through divine revelation of some
> > sort??
> >
> > Well, no, of course not.
>
>   wait a moment! jbor's observation that spiritual themes play a less important
>   role in pynchon's first two books than they do in the later ones is certainly
>   a right one. interesting in this context is the obvious switch to chinese
>   semantics in both, vineland and m&d, where gr stays with kabbalah (- present
>   in m&d too), astral traveling & tarot. perhaps trp has turned into an american
>   daoist?! that he, in any case, believes in the value and fruitfulness of
>   regular spiritual work becomes, imo, obvious in his intro to jim dodge's
>   "stone junction" from 1997 [!]: " ... stone junctions's allegiance, however,
>   is to the other kind of magic, the real stuff---long-practiced, all-out,
>   contrary-to-fact, capital m magic, not as adventitious spectacle, but as
>   pursued enterprise, in this very world we're stuck within, continuing to give
>   off readings---analog indications---of being abroad and at work, somewhere out
>   in it (xiii)". you may disagree, but i cannot recognize the most tiny bit of
>   irony in this very statement ...
>
> > But what then is gnosticism to him?
>
>   well, sloterdijk once defined gnosticism as "the original story of
>   dissidence". in this sense the religious anarchist thomas pynchon was, is and
>   will always be a gnostic to me.
>
> kfl
>