gnostic and Gnostic

[Dave Monroe]

"Pynchon, and pomo, merely show that any religion is a logocentric
system which, by its very nature, excludes all other povs from the
privileged side of a binary equation ...".  "Pomo" = "postmodernism," I
presume, but, again, postmodernisms, not  Postmodernism, and not to be
confused, conflated, confounded, elided, whatever with deconstruction(s,
not ...), which is what you seem rather to want to put into play here,
but ...

But is "that any religion is a logocentric system which ... excludes all
other" points of view and so forth really what is "shown," by Pynchon,
"pomo," or deconstruction?   The deconstructive move, at least, would
here be rather to demonstrate, to "show" (de- + monstrare, "to show")
how said "religion," far from "excluding all other points of view," is
rather structured, mutually determined by all said "other points," how
said "religion" bears the traces of all said "other points," how its
presumed (self-)Presence is structured by, bears the traces of, all
those absented "others" ...

"Its very nature"?  Quite an essentialization for an alleged
deconstruction ...

But I belive the point has long been here (there, everywhere),
gnosticism(s, not ...), religious, philosophical, sociological,
political, scientific, whatever, as "us v. (all of) them" "system(s)"
par excellence, relentlessly positing said "binary systems," that
alienated, indifferent-to-hostile, paranoia-inducing cosmos (and yet,
that divine trace within the fallen matter of that abjected flesh ...).
Quod erat, er, deconstructum ...

"Alarming"?  Why, when, where, how so?  What are the stakes here, then?
For you?  For anyone else?  For Pynchon, his texts and the reading
thereof?  "We" seem to belive there are some, and they are big.  This
has been asked before, but ...