Is Pynchon antirationalist? (part 2)

[Glenn Scheper]

> There seems to be a commonly held belief that Pynchon
> subscribes to a poststructuralist antirationalism.

> The two cowboys,
> played by an Englishman and a German,
> disagree on whether a certain midget sheriff,
> which they both see,
> actually exists.

> "Vhen you been out on the trailand you know vhich trail
> too, don't you you sniveling punk--for as long as I have,
> you know ah real midget sheriff from ah hallucinated vun"

        Or for me...

Englishman = rationalist
German = transcendentalist

sheriff, schema = God.
midget alerts me to an autofellator (cf. Nerrissa).
disposition by killing = Jesus.

sniveling punk = abject man, fallen into Christ role.
"and you know" alerts to the self-recognizable arcane.

falling into the trough = recognition as a proselyte.
(faith, acceptance without a clue to the meaning.)

failing of discourse = sets religion outside science.
(unfaith, rejection without a clue to the meaning.)

The faith group all recognize sin, but divides itself
into groups faith/works on recognition of forgiveness.

The unfaith group rejecting a doctrine of sin, divide
into groups pragmatic/hegemonic vs. excluded/literary.


Who will be the preterite, the elect, and the doomed?
Like Kakfa, I study because my very being is at stake.


The faith groups believe they are saints, hagios, holy.
But they are merely elect, assuming election matters.

The unfaith groups would be preterite in the sense of
passed over. But while time remains, they could elect.

The doomed are actually Christ, fallen from grace, as
a wise cyclops/centaur ever sees his death--anathema,
made a curse -> dedicated thing -> oath -> truth.

>From this vantage point, the unfaith are ignorant of
the greater truth structured to keep them so. But the
faithful usually stop short of the truth, hypocrites,
and I cannot be sure the election will be sufficient
in some day of judgment, that they shall differ from
the preterite, for I can map all the words of promise
on immediate tantric ideas, to fulfill and void them.
But I could also map judgment on individual parousia.

Ours is a position that is antirationalist compared to
a rationality excluding us, but not poststructuralist,
for there is a structuring reality, and a hermeneutic
to recognize truth, so it is not infinitely malleable
that it might be conquered by Hegelian dialectics.

Yours truly,
Glenn Scheper
http://home.earthlink.net/~glenn_scheper/
glenn_scheper + at + earthlink.net
Copyleft(!) Forward freely.