MDDM Ben Franklin

[Bandwraith at aol.com]

In a message dated 1/18/02 9:57:09 AM, jbor at bigpond.com writes:

<< I'd actually like to see if and how the hypotheses of Heisenberg,

Schrödinger et. al. are brought to bear at a structural level of the text.

I've always been persuaded that they are an influence at the *thematic*

level, in terms of indeterminacies, discontinuities, trawling those space/s

between empiricism and logic, and so forth<<

I do not think that it is possible to demonstrate how physics is "brought
to bear" at the structural level of the text, which might be akin to a
physical description of thought. Rather I think that Pynchon has
characters, or other elements of the text, represent or symbollize
concepts from theories like quantum mechanics, complexity theory,
molecular biology, etc., in a nearly completely independent and
unobtrusive way to the more literal interpretation of the "goings-on"
of the plot. My ear is somewhat tuned to hear these riffs. That 
they should be there at all- the plot works just fine without them-
I find to be quite amazing and have no easy answer for. It is a bit 
of a dilemma for me, because it is difficult to make others, not 
so inclined, to see this in the text, or care much about it, given 
the massive amount of other allusions, historical details, etc., 
all at least as important, that need to be unearthed and discussed.


{....}


>>The symmetry which struck me in the current scene was between George and

Chas and their respective "seconds", Gershom and Jeremiah. Neither of the

putative superiors is able to keep their inferior's tongue in check, though

both try to. (279.35, 285.30) I detect a healthy disregard for the

formalities of precedence in George's relationship with Gershom, and the

same sort of easy confraternity is beginning to seep into the partnership

between Cha. and Jere. also.<<


>>Gershom has "re-tailor'd" his "Slave-and-Master Joaks" for the current

audience, Cha. and Jere. *He*, the slave, is thus making the comparison

between a King and his subjects, and a Master and his slaves, which is an

interesting insight.<<

I was struck by the (a)symmetry between Philly and Mt. Vernon. 
Mason/Franklin and Dixon/Washington are the pairings that stand
out. I see Mason and Franklin as kindred spirits- both prone to being
hoisted by their own petards- while Dixon and Washington tend
to be more open and less devious, their kinship underscored by 
their shared roots and lilt of speech. In this view, similars
attract.

Continuing the comparison between Philly and Mt. Vernon requires
an analysis of the relationship between Lewis and Gershom, which,
completely lopsided in favor of Gershom, at first seems insignificant.
Indeed, we know of Lewis only through the reports of M&D. G&L are,
however, inextricably linked by the King Joax. That is, both G&L are
asking for interpretation. The "answers" are important. I have
posted my interpretations of all four K. Joax elsewhere. Suffice
it to say that the implication of the riddle Lewis asks is that
"size matters"- both the near-sighted Gunner and the King must
get close to their target (humorous in that Mason was taking a
leak when Lewis posed the riddle). Or, in another light, everything
is a matter of size, or scale. Lewis, unlike Gershom, does not provide
the answer to his riddle- left for us I guess- and Mason is d-d'd if
he knows. There's the rub.

As I've mentioned elsewhere, I think that Philly represents the 
quantum world and Mt. Vernon the macroscopic world, in terms of
the underlying physics/philosophy symbollism. I've also mentioned,
in that regard, that Gershom represents a powerful strange
attractor at the center of complex-chaotic system. Although 
the role of Gershom and the emergence of meaning is nascent 
in Lewis, the much diminished role of Lewis is in keeping the 
lack of causality/determinism at the quantum scale. The hall-
marks of chaotic systems: sensitive dependence on initial events,
self-similarity across scales (fractal formation) and especially
complexity are manifestaions of determinism. So, of course, is
meaning.

The underlying question, then, is how does meaning arise? It is
related to the origin of animacy question. They might be the
same. Both seem to require demarcations. 


>>I think that, in these immediate interviews or interrogations with Franklin

and Washington, Cha. and Jere. have been given a sort of test, or series

thereof, and that they have passed these to the satisfaction of their hosts,

which explains why Ben is more forthcoming at the subsequent meeting in

Philadelphia. Thus they have been permitted to continue with the commission

unhindered, and will be given every possible support, as well as receiving

sound advice about some of the hazards in store.<<


I agree.