Just for the Record

[Terrance]

The daily double! How much to you want to risk on your
knowledge of American fiction, Paul? 




Yes, this is the great embarrassment of philosophy, isn't
it?
It has become all too apparent that all attempts to
establish some "certitude in human knowledge" by refuting
all other attempts to establish some "certitude in human
knowledge" is not going to work. Is this because the world
in not ONE world? Are there are infinite possibilities? Or
is
it because  "certitude" admits of more than one
formulation and the reason for this is something arbitrary
or conventional but inseparable from the nature of thought
itself?  I'll go with the last question, as my answer, Alex.


Scientists count themselves
> lucky to  be less burdened by this sort of thing. If the hypothesis
> explains the empirical findings satisfactorily they've done good
> science--nobody worries whether the hypothesis is true of not, much less
> just or not. These concepts are hardly in their vocabularies. Novelists
> are unfortunately caught in the middle of all this.

Yes, but this is an argument  why philosophy is not too old,
disposable, too tied up in knots. Some are concerned about
the hypothesis,
right? And some philosophers are concerned as to whether
scientific experiments are just or not, right? Technology
was an issue, a question for philosophy, for moral
philosophy, not science, when philosophy was not too old and
science was too young, right? And can it be a very good
place for the novelist to be,
between science and philosophy. 




> 
> Rob J. recently suggested that P may have intentionally left the end of GR
> in the kind of muddle many of us find it to be in for philosphical-type
> reasons. Postmodern reasons. 


R was talking about the
> indeterminate outcomes of so much at the end of the book I
> believe. Considering the state a lot of literary and philosophical
> thinking in the early seventies--as a result of the "failure of the
> sixties" presumably--I think R's position has a certain amount of
> merit. Exactly what was a respectable still fairly young highbrow novelist
> to do but follow the "french" lead.

R's argument is, as usual, eloquent, smart, visual, very
creative.

We should discuss it more, I'd like to, perhaps we can bring
in Wes Chapman's essay on GR too, it seems to fit the
current discussion. 

> 
> Perhaps the book is a child of the seventies in several ways. It's been
> suggested that the absense of emphasis on the Holocaust may stem
> from the fact that that subject had been done to death earlier. I don't
> mean this to sound disrespectful but it's probably a fact.

This is old issue, but I simply don't think it matters. I'm
not being disrespectful and I know you are not, but this is
a
silly thing to consider really. On this I agree with R. This
has more to do with Pynchon's view of
art/history/aesthics/fiction/narratology/ and although we
may disagree about the reader's role and the hegemony of new
critics and all that political stuff, I think we agree that
Pynchon's treatment of the holocaust in GR is what we would
expect given his views of the above.  


I'll wait to the end to discuss the end, but I must say, you
make the strongest case possible for reading novels. Tell
that story to everyone you meet. 

Thanks, 

TF