GRGR(29): Roger's mission

[Terrance]

Paul Mackin wrote:
> 
> P. 638 seems to be trying to say what the We-system is. Quite bewildering
> to Roger and the reader and no wonder since delusions are the center of
> focus. Delusions about Them and delusions about Us (We). Delusions seem to
> stand for Truth and Reality, as officially defined. 

He wants to know, What is a They-System? Is there a
difference between They and We Systems? A little joke, is
that difference measurable by Chebychev's Theorem? 

It's what They call 'delusional systems' and They only
define what is appropriate to the purpose at hand, what is
fitting to Their immediate needs and desires, what adheres
to their self-serving slippery momentary ideas--sounds
fishy, ambitious,  political, without  principle. 



Sounds like it might be a discussion between Pragmatic and
Absolutist philosophers-- with a few deconstructionists
standing around kititzing. 

Who are the pragmatic philosophers here? 

Who does the official defining anyway? Is it stated whether
it is the case that We create the  They-system. Goodness
knows We need It. But does It need Us? Roger senses
> that the opposition between They and We is dubious, some kind of social
> construct and the issue drifts off into a Pynchonean dismissal.


Is it a social construct-- Your playing Their game? That's
what Roger suspects, but he is right? 



 "Don't
> let it bother you. You'll find you can operate quite well." Somehow I
> don't get the impression they any dialectical synthesis is expected to
> result from the clash of the Force with Counterforce or the They- and
> We-systems.


Right, Pynchon is not a dialectician in this sense, is he?
He is dialectic proper, debate, question and answer, but
there is no system and no transcendent synthesis. All
attempts at dialectical synthesis in GR involve a system and
an attempt to transcend and are thus doomed (the
Counterforce for example).