rubrics (I like that word), wrecking crews and hugfests

[Robin Landseadel]

On Dec 1, 2009, at 1:03 PM, David Morris wrote:

> I laugh a bit when someone here thinks
> Pynchon is an adept or disciple at any particular (or even general)
> system.  But then that mirrors my perspective as an agnostic.

Judging from Against the Day, TRP could pull off a "Ten-Card Tarot,  
Pentacles Wild" scam in the middle of a round of three-card monty if  
he really wanted to. I know a bit about Tarot and Tarot cards. Pynchon  
obviously knows a lot more than I do. How far it goes, I really don't  
know but he does demonstrate a high degree of knowledge of the  
development of the Tarot, 1893-1920ish. One P-Lister—who suddenly  
appeared then disappeared—said that Pynchon's knowledge of the  
kaballah is shallow. Mine is altogether cursory. The kind of knowledge  
on display in Weissman's Tarot may be shallow but it serves the  
purposes of the novel well.

Sounds to me that you might prefer to be thought of as a Niels Bohr  
kind of agnostic, the one that at the bottom of it all believes in  
science and horseshoes. I'm more of a Wavy Gravy kind of agnostic, one  
who really believes that Nobody can make better apple pie than your  
mother and really wants a slice of Nobody's apple pie.

> But belief does "work like that."  Believing is seeing, participating
> and witnessing.  I've done my share, and still do from time to time

I have reason to suspect that I've done more than your share but it's  
entirely possible that I'm wrong.

I play with the cards a whole lot less these days and don't consult  
the Llewellyn astrological calendar anymore. Working at a metaphysical  
bookstore more or less "cured" me. It's not that my point of view  
changed very much but I saw a lot of completely deluded people. Of  
course, I saw a lot of them at Borders too, though usually coming from  
the opposite direction. Between the two I've had some time to track my  
own delusions.

> Personally I like the wisdom/divination of the I Ching.

Personally I like it too. Made a yummy looking painting out of one of  
the Hexagrams. And love the awful pun in GR.

> But I think that's because, like so many systems it is very open-
> ended, and one gets what one brings into it,  though I do allow for
> some possibility of extra-whatever interaction.

This is just how I feel about the Tarot as well, though I see a more  
western skew and more western fables [like the ones you'll find in  
Pynchon's books] in the Tarot Deck. This tends to push results in a  
more western direction.

I pretty much agree with you as regards the utility of any mode of  
scrying—like the stars they don't compel, they impel. A lot of these  
divinatory playthings are speaking to a younger self, working off the  
hopeful assumption that one is still open to fairy tales. There is a  
utility in being able to respond to fairy tales, it all really depends  
on one's skill as an interpreter of these old myths. I think of modes  
of scrying more as different kinds of psychic weather reporting  
anyway. One should note that Doc [who strikes me as an older version  
of Pynch's younger self] doesn't do much in the way of the  
metaphysical, at least not without a heavy push from Sortilège,

> Peace,
> David Morris

Vout,
Robin