Subject/Objective Reality/Illusion

[jbor]

The works certainly entertain religious possibilities, such as the existence
of supernatural phenomena and beings - not just of a Christian "God" mind
you - but when a unified cosmogony of whatever flavour is entertained or
endorsed it is usually on the behalf of one or another character or
narrative agency. (I'm less confident in identifying, let alone trusting,
any purportedly "authorial" voice, particularly so in Pynchon's fictions.)
But I think it is also clear enough that at times the texts similarly
entertain the possibility of the non-existence of a God, or gods. I think
it's a pointless exercise trying to argue conclusively one way or the other.

best


on 23/11/01 1:08 AM, Nick Thornton at Nick.Thornton at liffe.com wrote:

> 
> ...and when the list member says the author is a religious man and refers
> to a paragraph in the authorial point of view that supports religion? Is
> this this now objective? I'd suggest not because of the several interpretive
> steps between reading the text, making the subjective judgement "religious"
> and linking the narrative voice with the physical author. Can anything other
> than a statement of fact about the words on the page be objective (e.g. the
> word "church" is used ten times)?
> 
> I'd agree with the view below that all readings are subjective and subject
> to personal perspectives (I'd actually go further and say that reality is
> just a negotiated construct, but maybe that's another thread...)
> 
> regards
> Nick
>> 
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Michel Ryckx [mailto:michel.ryckx at freebel.net]
>> Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2001 12:30 PM
>> To: pynchon-l at waste.org
>> Subject: Re: Subject/Objective Reality/Illusion
>> 
>> 
>> Subjectivity is when a list member says that the works of mr. Pynchon
>> indicate the author is
>> a religious man, and someone else says: no, it's clear he's an atheist.
>> 
>> Paul Mackin wrote:
>> 
>>> "barbara100 at jps.net" wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Sheesh! now I'm more confused than I was.  Are you saying I've got it
>> backwards, Paul?
>>> 
>>> No, not exactly backwards. Just using your post as a jumping off place to
>> express my
>>> dislike of the subjective vs objective readings idea. A personal
>> idiosyncray. To me all
>>> readings are subjective. Prefer that other distinctions be made.
>>> 
>>> Personal vs impersonal
>>> Local vs Global
>>> supported vs unsupported.
>>> 
>>> Semioticians or linguisticians have a word for overly personal readings.
>> Is it
>>> "empirical" by any chance? Don't know.
>>> 
>>> P.