MDDM Ch. 5: "an act of Him"

[Terrance]

The Quakers acknowledge the Trinity as do the Anglicans. I don't believe
that the Trinity and all its dancing on the head of a pin theological
implications for the various Sectarians, is the what Dixon is referring
to here. Maybe, but I still think, given the mention of Quakers and
Coal, that Death, disaster, the Devil, as Below even, is what Dixon
suspects or/and (because Dixon is a very wet/dry sense of humor) is
referring to when he says, "which one." Mr. Mason's religious Paranoia
(this is clearly defined in Pynchon's books), everything in connected,
an act of HIM directed by HIS purpose, is not something Mr. Dixon finds
is at odds with what is clearly the acts of men. The purpose not of the
Devil, but of men who claim to be Enlightened but are in fact very Dark
when they act. It is after all Mr. Fox's teachings about the inner light
(note the inner voice, altos and tenors) that Dixon has twice told us he
is living by. Dixon is reluctant to attribute the evil, the homicidal
ego, the strange and the mad, to the Devil or to God. God is not the
finger out of the clouds, the finger invisible, the lightning and the
Devil is not have sway over the fallen world. 

 What is here, I believe, is what we continue to read, at least from the
Dixon side of the tale, the preterit are are at the Mercy of men in
power. Not War. Not THEM. Not even a conspiracy of machines, but men.
Dixon protects himself with a military coat. Protects himself not so
much from the madness of war, as the madmen who wage (and wager) it.
Mason goes to the witch. He wants to buy or have told his fortune,
insurance (like the ships on both sides of these protracted world wars,
insured by Lloyds of London), Dixon flirts with the girl. Mason now,
like the savage harpooner of Moby-Dick meditates madly on Death. 

The entire novel, thus far, is one big cock fight. It's a cock fight, a
battle royal. The Fop fighting the learned English Dog (in a ring,
sailors wagering) who threatens to infect him with his onsetting mental
illness, a fear of water. Now Captain Grant
feigns madness, an old trick of the cunning bar room brawler in over his
head. 

The boy fifer is but one more example of a Wapping Lad pressed into
service. 
Coal miners, like Irish spinners of Yarns, like Indian Sailors up the
mast to smell the wind, are the colonialized, exploited foot soldiers
indeed. And where the Lefty intellectuals to save them from their
ignorance? To invite them into the party of Wittgenstein quips and
Freudian cant at rusty spoon as they wait out in the WIND?   



Paul Mackin wrote:
> 
> The Trinity is an article of faith for Anglicans,  isn't it? Quakers don't
> explicitly reject it like the Unitarians but don't have doctirnes (or
> clergy) at all
> 
> So Mason's "a common Belief among your people" is slightly puzzling
> (especially given the initial cap) because it can't very accurately refer to
> theological beliefs, unless Mason may not know all that much about Quakers.
> 
> Also what does Coal-Mining have to do with anything? Only thing one might
> think is that it's very dark in coal mines, only allowing for the INNER
> light.
> 
> Reminds me of that Bette Davis movie where her Welch coal-mining pupil
> writes in his essay: Even though I walk in the dark I will still know that
> the corn is green.
> 
>         P.
> 
> Original Message -----
> From: "Michel Ryckx" <michel.ryckx at freebel.net>
> To: <pynchon-l at waste.org>
> Sent: Sunday, October 07, 2001 6:34 AM
> Subject: Re: MDDM Ch. 5: "an act of Him"
> 
> > jbor's explanation makes sense; but, though a bit late to stumble in on
> this
> > one: may there not be an other explanation?
> >
> > The Roman catholics have a Father, a Son and a Holy Ghost.  I do not know
> how
> > the Church of England thinks about that; and what do the Quakers say about
> that
> > topic?  If the Anglicans hold the same view on the Trinity, then "which
> one tha'
> > mean" on 43.5 would be: which of the three, father, son of holy ghost.  It
> would
> > be logical given the " . . . a common belief among your people? at 42.7
> >
> > Michel
> > (I'll start MDMD(5) tonight --Greenwich Time here--, if there are no
> > objections.)
> >
> > jbor wrote:
> >
> > > My reading of the opening misunderstanding (42) between M & D in the
> chapter
> > > is that it is not over the word "Him", but the word "act". Mason says
> that
> > > it was "an act of Him so strange, His purposes unknown", meaning of
> course
> > > an act of "God", to which Dixon replies "I'm not sure which one tha
> mean",
> > > meaning he isn't sure which "act" Dixon is referring to (i.e. the order
> to
> > > sail, the attack, the retreat etc). If Dixon were referring to the "Him"
> > > then he wouldn't have used the pronoun "one" in his reply, surely? And,
> it
> > > fits in much better with Mason's wry rejoinder to Dixon's observation at
> > > chapter's close about lightning not striking twice.
> >
> > [snip]
> >