Osmosis & P's Gnostic Cosmoses

[Terrance]

Otto Sell wrote:
> Otto sez:
> . . . and all that religious, esoterical, symbolical, technical,
> psychological, ethnical, historical, opera, theatre, cinema blah blah blah
> in his books . . . all approaches to P.'s texts you named are covered by
> deconstruction and logocentrism, but every "single" approach misses the
> point.

OH! What fools, why can't they see the Light, the Truth, the
Way of P's Deconstructed Binaries? 

> 
> <deconstruction is merely encyclopedic> is a statement that will be hard to
> prove -there is a certain mannerism in many postmodern texts- but The Crying
> of Lot 49 isn't simply an encyclopaedia of the different meanings of the
> word "lot" in the English language or a collection of the 49-symbolism and
> the end of the story not only a simple reference to the second chapter of
> the "Acts" -- Oedipa waits in vain for the "word" - Pynchon is
> deconstructing the binary of the original holy "word" (given by God) and the
> secular, human "text," imho expressing his way of thinking about this
> religious fake-story called New Testament. It's just a story, just a text,
> told by men (males), no holy truth at all.

P is right, he forget everything he learned when he wrote
CL.
;-)

 The WORD is anachronistically logocentric,
because the "Data behind which always, nearer or farther,
was the numinous certainty of God" is useless. (GR.242)
There is an
unbridgeable gap between the sacred WORD and the ABSOLUTE.
It's not a matter of deconstructing binaries. P is not our
to write an anti male, anti Catholic, anti-christian text
that is some how a model for all the critical theory that
mostly came on the scene after he wrote them. Bring in the
linguist, Stephen Dodson-Truck, deconstruct, but the
Proverbs are for Paranoids.