Pynchon & dreams & We

[David Morris]

Yeah, like "it's the stones in the brook are what make it sing,” but
with the self-induced (paranoia) thing.  Alice's post disallows the
imaginary master in favor of the imaginary rebel, sort of the opposite
of your "thesis."

I like connecting this dynamic to Gnosticism, and its unseen semi-evil
demi-master:  The very structure of the Universe is out to get/control
you (or maybe you're just imagining it).

Your characterization:  "turn[ing] ... attention from what happens to
[you] to what [you] can enact" can be taken in many (well at least
two) ways:

1.	Magical "power of the mind" stuff (like Christian Science) - what
you think/will is magically what you get.

2.	Gnosticism's "turning attention away" thing is (in my mind) an
anhedonic, reality-denying relationship with the world.  Mastery there
is completely delusionary.

David Morris

On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 11:04 AM, Ian Livingston<igrlivingston at gmail.com> wrote:
> It is an implicit tenet of Gnosticism that a person moves from being in bondage to fate into the estate of master of his destiny when he turns his attention from what happens to him to what he can enact.  I wonder if the master of his destiny need still be in opposition to some imagined hostile other.  It has been growing in my thoughts on TRP that he might be nudging our attention toward that line of thinking.  I have not tested the idea sufficiently to call it a thesis, but it seems to me possible.
>