who's mystic?

[jbor]

----------
>From: lorentzen-nicklaus at t-online.de (lorentzen-nicklaus)
>

>   any definition of "religion" and especially "mysticism" should, in my
>   opinion, focus on the (binary) distinction of immanency and transcendency.
on
>   further details consent is hard to find.

Slothrop's fate could be (and is) described both in terms of immanency and
transcendency. I think that rather than proposing or endorsing some kind of
overarching syncretism Pynchon simply allows (and demonstrates) that
mutually contradictory realities (might? do? can?) exist.

(With _M&D_ it's that reinvigoration of the lapsed subjunctive mood in
English which is going to be interesting to investigate in this respect.)

>   religious bureaucrazy is, as a social system, in the first place like any
>   other bureaucrazy, be that of political, economic or scientific origin.
>   this view - max weber gets mentioned in gr - can, i think, also be found in
>   pynchon' s novels.
>
>   trp's "ontological pluralism " (especially in gr) makes the notion of
>   "weltanschauung" itself problematic; nevertheless i may say that i consider
>   the novels' spiritual dimension to be at least as important as the political
>   one. there are many of rooms at the hotel pynchonia, but that mystic bridal
>   chamber flashes me most ...

Agreed. Pynchon's texts show how a "worldview" both does and does not equate
to the (a?) "world". An excellent post, Kai. Thanks.

best