Krishna, who will have the final word?

[Joseph Tracy]

I don't see much real argument or disagreement here. P allows  
multiple interpretations and IMO  leaves doors open rather than  
closing them. If part of what is called the post-modern perspective  
is to approach all narratives skeptically, paying attention to  
cultural, linguistic and personal bias and limits, TRP goes one  
better by allowing both skepticism and credible alternative ways of  
seeing history, religious experience, natural events, human inner  
life and action. A kind of highly thoughtful multivalent agnosticism  
with  a few definite moral consistencies. An agnosticism that allows  
for supernatural and extra terrestrial possibilities.

He does favor the peaceable over the violent, a movement toward  
sympathy/empathy/respect rather than toward orthodoxy.  He is  
skeptical about progress/engineering/ scientific triumphalism all  
forms of imperialism/colonialism. He pretty much admits he is a  
Luddite and explains why.. He is sympathetic to conconforming  
communities  and individuals and smart ass outlaw cultures,to lovers,  
to seekers of truth, to local mysteries, alternative histories. Where  
moral consistencies come from is a tough question. I think TRP gives  
readers a choice rather than a why. But he points out the flaws and  
difficulties of any choice revealing the undermining power of desire,  
entropy, large historic forces.

I think the appeal for a lot of readers is this wild rollicking  
complexity and lack of simple resolution that reflects our real  
experience but doesn't dry it out into dust in the wind; research  
without academic pomp, alternate interpretations without orthodox  
purity, classicism with Thanatoids and factories filling with mayo .  
A world infinitely detailed and digressive and amusing. High druggy   
buddhist comedy ya just don't come across every day.








On Feb 18, 2009, at 10:18 AM, kelber at mindspring.com wrote:

> Religion and philosophy may ask a lot of the same questions but  
> that doesn't mean they come up with the same answers.  And if the  
> history of humans is saturated with religion that doesn't mean we  
> have to be religious to talk or think about human history.
>
> Laura
>
> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Mark Kohut <markekohut at yahoo.com>
>> Sent: Feb 18, 2009 9:51 AM
>> To: kelber at mindspring.com, pynchon-l at waste.org
>> Subject: Re: VL-IV: Chap 10 - Krishna
>>
>> When one's fiction is concerned with Man's place in the cosmos, in  
>> History--
>> History saturated with religion always---isn't it by definition  
>> religious?
>>
>> MK
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----
>> From: "kelber at mindspring.com" <kelber at mindspring.com>
>> To: pynchon-l at waste.org
>> Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 9:35:17 PM
>> Subject: Re: VL-IV: Chap 10 - Krishna
>>
>> Examples?
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com>
>>
>>>
>>> One of Pynchon's over-arching explorations is that of origins of
>>> order/patterns/meaning in the universe.  Are they inherent (existent
>>> apart from man, and "discovered" or "revealed"), or are they  
>>> invented?
>>> Or both?  This is very much a religious question, and thus, I think,
>>> ALL of Pynchon's novels are steeped in religious exploration.
>>>
>>> David Morris
>>>
>>> On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 4:49 PM,  <kelber at mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>> I have to confess to a total mental block towards anything  
>>>> remotely religious or spiritual.  Still, the majority of TRP's  
>>>> themes don't fall into these categories, which explains why I'm  
>>>> such a Pynchon fan(atic).
>>
>>
>>
>