MDDM Ch. 5: "an act of Him"

[Paul Mackin]

Good thoughts, Terrance. I hadn't read your post yet when I fired off my
last. Also let me apologize for misstating Rob's contention in an obviously
(which was fortunate) incorrect way.

        P.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Terrance" <lycidas2 at earthlink.net>
To: <pynchon-l at waste.org>
Sent: Sunday, October 07, 2001 10:22 AM
Subject: Re: MDDM Ch. 5: "an act of Him"


> 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]
> > >