MDDM ch.67: "Yet, does it live" (657.13)

[Bandwraith at aol.com]

In a message dated 8/4/02 9:33:55 PM, millison at online-journalist.com writes:

<< Dixon seems to have the insight that Mason lacks, when they're trying to
answer the Native American's query about where the Holy resides and Dixon
gestures to include the earth itself, all their surroundings.  Dixon, at
this point at least (he seems to waver and wobble a bit through the novel)
seems to grasp an idea that runs throughout Pynchon's fiction, the living
earth, the planet as a sentient being, Gaia, a point of view (which I am
_not_ saying is Pynchon the man's, only that it is present in his fiction)
evident in Vineland, GR, and the rest.  >>

I think that section ("Where is your Spirit Village?" 651) pretty
clearly signifies the western analog/digital duality which will finally
manifest itself as the infamous 'collapse of the wave function'
"resolution" provided by quantum mechanics, in century XX. I.e.,
Mason's digital zenith pointing versus Dixon's more non-local
analog inclusiveness of the here, there and everywhere, are both
represented in answer to the native's query.

Interestingly, the conversation proceeds on to the topic of
observation ("Star-gazing"), wherein Daniel broaches the 
possibility that the natives are not so concerned about
objectivity, and seem to experience the stars in a rather
subjective manner, as evidenced by Jemmy's tale.

There couldn't be a clearer contrast between the methods
of perceiving or "measuring" reality. I think here, again, 
Pynchon is dabbling with anachronism. von Neumann would
publish his definitive _The Mathematical Foundations of
Quatum Mechanics_ in 1955. In it he says (quoting Pattee,
here, quoting von Neumann: 
    http://www.c3.lanl.gov/~rocha/pattee/pattee.html )

    That is, we must always divide the world into two
    parts, the one being the observed system, the
    the other the observer. In the former, we can
    follow up all physical processes (in principle at
    least) arbitrarily precisely. In the latter, this is
    meaningless. The boundary between the two is
    arbitrary to a very large extent... but this does
    not change the fact that in each method of
    description the boundary must be placed
    somewhere, if the method is not to proceed
    vacuously...

{Pattee calls this division the "epistemic cut." I think
that Dirk haunting Mason might be related to this notion)

"...yet, they do come to us" 

The native american solution: