Is Pynchon antirationalist?

[Paul Nightingale]

Pynchon "suggest[s] a more provocative form of resistance" (Pt1).

And: "Osbie presents Katje with a new sensibility, a new
rationality--not a counterargument" (Pt3).

And then: "[I]t isn't that the Counterforce are simply
antirational--only They would consider them antirational--but that Our
rationalism is systematically different then Theirs" (Pt7).

If "resistance", as used here, refers to the kind of resistance theory
found in various neo-Marxisms out of Gramsci, as well as Foucault on
governmentality--then I agree it's key to an understanding of Pynchon.
This was my working definition of resistance when introducing the Watts
essay a few weeks ago, at which time I suggested a connection with the
Luddite essay, precisely because resistance goes way beyond any
dismissive (and patronising) judgement of rebellion as
self-defeating/self-destructive etc.

However, in the third quotation listed above, "antirational" appears
interchangeable with 'irrational': They, in fact, would dismiss the
Counterforce as 'irrational', precisely because They are incapable of
grasping the resistant antirational (or, indeed, the antirational
resistant).

Sez Osbie: "We piss on Their rational arguments" etc. Resistance is
antirational precisely because its practitioners deny Them the right to
define what is rational and what is irrational--and then act upon it. I
don't mean that the We-system doesn't make that distinction; rather,
that so distinguishing--as a signifier of power--has been rendered
impotent.