Not for nothing but....

[P. Chevalier]

I'll be back...
Just to make that point clear however: I find my sources more in "Critique 
of Dialectical Reason", which is far less fashionable than "Being and 
Nothingness" . Much more technical and less connected to the simplified 
idea everyone has about "existencialism" (ooh, yeah, french philosophy 
written in parisian underground Cafés, while listening to Boris Vian or 
dancing the jerk in St Germain...).
But i can't find any english translation of the texts I'd like to bring as 
arguments. Need some more time to work on that...

Anyway, my point was not to describe "V." only as a narrative version of 
Sartre's dialectical essay, but to expose some impressive similarities 
between a narrative masterpiece and an equally impressive philosophical 
essay. The tension between human and inert, between subject and object (in 
history for instance), between the living and the matter,  is a keypoint to 
Pynchon's novel; every chapter is a variation on that theme... which is the 
central idea in "Critique of Dialectical Reason" (the dialectic between 
"individual praxis" and "practico-inert", as Sartre names it, and the 
possibility of individual freedom through the movements of history).

My attempt would be pure "yahoo-philosophy" or postmodern delirium if the 
link had only been the fact that the action is in late 50's and that the 
whole-sick crew is somehow beat-like or (en français dans le texte) zazou; 
but the contact-points are far more deep and productive than those 
circumstancial look-alikes.

And I'd like to discuss them furthermore!



At 19:36 9/04/2003 -0400, Paul Mackin wrote:
>On Wed, 2003-04-09 at 18:53, Terrance wrote:
>
> > The irony here is that wrangling over the meaning of the noun
> > "nothingness" on a single page in a huge and complex novel in an absurd
> > manner has prevented a discussion of  "nothingness", Existentialism,
> > Atheism, so on ... as a driving force, theme,  or idea in the novel or
> > in Pynchon's novels.
>
>
>I thought M. Chevalier was going to get back to us with his
>investigation of Existentialism in V.
>
>Being and Nothingness
>
>By the way, everyone was an Existentialist back in the fifties. Don't
>remember anyone actually reading the book however. Perhaps a translation
>was not yet available.
>
>P.
>
>
> >
> > You know, this discussion would not probably never get bogged down like
> > this if the contexts was DeLillo or Gaddis. What is it about Pynchon or
> > the Pynchon Critical Industry that gets people into such absurd dead end
> > End Zones?
> >
> > PS I'm not avoiding your quires S~Z, Mind, Consciousness, Wholeness,
> > etc., just thinking  about the best way to include Jung and not get my
> > ass in trouble.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20030410/c900b0da/attachment.html>