AtD, naming

[Ian Livingston]

Yes, it is not valid to equate the unnamed with the unnameable.  One must be
mindful, yes?  Especially when investigating the reaches of metaphor in the
likes of TRP's work.

What are we talking about when we use the term gnosis?  Here's Wikipedia on
the term:

Gnosis From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia • *
Learn more about citing
Wikipedia<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_Wikipedia>
* •
Jump to: navigation <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosis#column-one>,
search<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosis#searchInput>
  <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Wiktionary-logo-en.png>
 Look up *gnosis <http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/gnosis>* in
Wiktionary<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiktionary>,
the free dictionary.
 This article is about the concept of gnosis. For the magazine, see Gnosis
(magazine) <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosis_%28magazine%29>.

*Gnosis* (from the Greek <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_language> word
for knowledge <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge>, γνώσις) is used in
English <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_language> to specify the
spiritual knowledge of a saint or enlightened human being. It is described
as the direct experiential knowledge of the supernatural or divine. This is
not enlightenment understood in its general sense of insight or learning
(which in Greek is
διαφωτισις)[1]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosis#cite_note-0>but
enlightenment <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlightenment> that validates
the existence of the supernatural.

The Oxford English
Dictionary<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_English_Dictionary>defines
gnosis as, "A knowledge of spiritual mysteries." From the word
gnosis is derived Gnostic and
Gnosticism<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism>,
the latter a modern construct referring to one of various eastern
sectarians<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sectarian>flourishing during
the early Christian era which claimed to have
supernatural knowledge. The term being
Koine<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koine>Greek has, nonetheless, a
much broader application than being exclusive to
any sectarian group. The term gnosis is used by
Byzantine<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine>and
Hellenic <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellenic> cultures as a word to mean
a special knowledge or insight of the
supernatural,[2]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosis#cite_note-1>in
some sense mature
understanding <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apperception> or
knowledge.[3]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosis#cite_note-2>It
refers to the knowledge that comes from experience rather than from
rational or reasoned thinking. Knowledge as in
revelation<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revelation>and or
intuitive <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intuition_%28knowledge%29> knowledge
(see gnosiology <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosiology>).


This pretty much excludes any of the characters, except, maybe, Cyprian from
the concept of gnosis, although one might argue for Webb as an intuitively
enlightened individual.  His death certainly recalls crucifixions
(cruci-fictions?) of 'enlightened' ones of 'history.'  The point is the
naming and, I believe, the alluding.  Pynchon builds metaphors at a
staggering rate and lades them with meanings so rich and textured his feats
of mind baffle the common imagination.  The whole "V" metaphor is stunning
in its range and depth by now.  Yet we can't really name it "the 'V'
metaphor" because that isn't what it is.  It is something beyond naming, but
we intuit its presence in the work.  We sense it by acclimatization, through
the acquisition of experience beyond the rational to what we might call
mature understanding.  We grok the parallaxis subtly.

So I think it's not that naming is wrong, per se, just inadequate.  The
potential for knowledge is much greater than what can be contained within
the limits of language, but language can direct the attention to effects
within the conceptual range that ignite intuitive lights in the mind trapped
in the dungeons of reason and rationality, of the exterior inanimates of
ideas.  Gnosis is gnosis, not unnameable and maybe not under the sole
proprietorship of the 'enlightened.'  I know I'm not enlightened, by there
are moments of insight I can call by no better name than 'gnostic.'

-i

On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 6:42 PM, David Payne <dpayne1912 at hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> Ian wrote:
> >It is odd how things seem to become what we name them, and how the unnamed
> allures.
>
> And Mark asked:
> >In Pynchon, is Naming a 'reduction of choices", a reification of
> amorphous, anarchic life....?
>
> "When the multiple outcomes of the night were apt to narrow to one in only
> clock-seconds, engine performance could mean everything" (AtD 464, Frank
> meditating after staring too long at Vang Feeley's crotch).
>
> But be careful not mistake that which cannot be named with that which is
> not named, as only three pages later, when Frank's Ma, trapped(?), tries to
> spare him:
>
> "What's going on?"
> "Nothin 't'll do you any good to know."
>
> Now I wouldn't know a gnostic from my arse (so go ahead and kick my tail
> real hard to teach me the difference), but insofar as naming is creation
> ("things seem to become what we name them"), is the act of naming an act of
> blundering, confusion, maybe downright evil--and is the gnosis unnameable?
> _________________________________________________________________
> With Windows Live for mobile, your contacts travel with you.
>
> http://www.windowslive.com/mobile/overview.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_Refresh_mobile_052008
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20080509/c8f18fff/attachment-0001.html>