VL-IV pgs. 98/99: Postmodern Mysticism

[Simon Bryquer]

Not to worry. Joyce used Kabbalistic terminology like a pretention quasi 
intellectual, he knew almost nothing ( he was particularly attracted to the 
derivative known as Christian Cabbala because of its potential heretical 
gestures towards the Catholic Church,  so he probably skim read  Pico da 
Mirendola, its foremost exponent) but as I mentioned at the onset of these 
post, many writers and poets have been draw to this world, and the occult in 
general .  They were all attracted by the vast array of symbolic and poetic 
concept and images, after all mysticism is the poetic path of reaching Truth 
both great and small and in general the questions that plague and at time 
elevate human existence even though these poets and writer used it 
superficially and with little knowledge, it makes no difference, its a 
beginning for them. They belong for the most part  to a body of work that 
considered  Kabbalah as occult literature.

The vast array of symbols and images of this world is no matter the 
involvement a personal map for these poets and writers, sometimes more 
revealed in their writing that others.  And let us not forget that what is 
most frequently associated with Kabbalah is Magic, practical and otherwise, 
magic a very powerful draw at first and does not every poet and novelist, 
whether knowingly or not, see themselves as Creator  and secret magicians 
toiling away at their creation, creating Golems which they pass off as 
characters, sometimes even in competition with God whether they believe in 
the deity or not.

Of course Joyce fan will fight like hell and never admit that Joyce could 
ever be intellectually pretension. But its their fight not mine.

Simon


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ray Easton" <kraimie at kraimie.net>
To: <pynchon-l at waste.org>
Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 10:05 AM
Subject: Re: VL-IV pgs. 98/99: Postmodern Mysticism


> Robin Landseadel wrote:
>>
>> My point is not hinging on how superficial or deep Pynchon's knowledge of 
>> these matters is. His knowledge may well be superficial, as you [both] 
>> are saying. My knowledge is superficial, as you both have pointed out. 
>> Pynchon may well be skimming the surface of these topics, but that does 
>> not eliminate the presence of these topics in his books.
>
> I've no idea, of course, what Pynchon's actual knowledge of any subject 
> matter is.  But his knowledge of mathematics as displayed in AtD is 
> certainly superficial.  In the case of the math, I've concluded that the 
> details of the mathematics present in AtD have in fact no meaning at 
> all -- that all that actually matters is that the characters are wrapped 
> up in this activity.
> I lack the knowledge to have a good basis to draw the same conclusion 
> about his use of the occult, but I wonder if this case is not similar.
>
> Ray