NPPF Commentary Line 230, P. 164

[Otto]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ghetta Life" <ghetta_outta at hotmail.com>
To: <paul.mackin at verizon.net>; <pynchon-l at waste.org>
Sent: Friday, October 10, 2003 9:01 PM
Subject: Re: NPPF Commentary Line 230, P. 164
>
>
>
> >From: Paul Mackin <paul.mackin at verizon.net>
> >
> >The sense seems to be that Life's coming into being is in no way a
> >logical and predictable consequence of anything coming before.
> >Therefore, we should not rule out Afterlife simply because it is not a
> >logical and predictable consequence of life.
>
> Yes, but he's using logic to come to this conclusion, reasoning about the
> unreasonable.
>

Well said!

In a way this "reasoning about the unreasonable" reminds me of Wernher von
Braun saying "Everything that science has taught me (...) strengthens my
belief in the continuity of our spiritual existence after death."

Applying tools from the field of the known to the field of the unknown won't
work. Science can neither prove any Afterlife nor rule out that there is
none.

But it's a good argument Shade makes by switching from Afterlife to
Pre-Life, which contrasts sharply with Kinbote's conclusion:
"(...) actually, the scientific and the supernatural, the miracle of the
muscle and the miracle of the mind, are *both* inexplicable as are all in
the ways of Our Lord."

As long as we're bound to the space-time contiuum we're only able to say
something that makes sense about the universum we're able to observe
scientifically, with our five senses. Any utterance from the field of the
unknown may be of this poetic quality of "wonderful nonsense" if seen or
felt by someone who lacks any sixth sense.

Any imagination about the field of unknown by the field of the known
necessarily will be wrong or inaccurate because they are not "sufficiently
unlikely" -- a wonderful phrase.

All we "can think of is a domestic ghost," -- think I'm going to re-read
"Hamlet" tonight.

Otto