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

[Joseph Tracy]

On Nov 25, 2009, at 4:16 PM, malignd at aol.com wrote:

>
> <<I've often wondered how seriously Pynchon takes that sort of  
> thing. Tarot in GR, ferrinstance. But writing occult-informed/ 
> inflected works, and satirising occultism, well, it's that sort of  
> duality that makes Pynchon Pynchon.>>
A sentence written with any sincerity of communicative intent relies  
on some kind of belief if only in the usefulness  of words.  The  
transition from the experienced power of language to some version of  
implicit logos , whether  Tao, I Ching, archetypal mythos or physics  
is not so great.  There seems to be a powerful drive in humanity to  
understand and give meaning to existence

  While misappropriation of  a belief system, whether it is a secular  
or religious logos is comical and ludicrous in the same way the  
emperoror's new clothes  , or apocalyptics traipsing down the  
mountain when Jesus doesn't show, or the current batch of string  
theorists appear to be, there is also  something much more serious  
and respectable to be found in science, religion or politics. So when  
you say it is "a given that P doesn't-couldn't possibly -take this  
stuff seriously." it all depends on what you mean by "this stuff" .  
Simply poking fun at the capacity of scientists or spiritualists to  
make fools of themselves or worse does not imply absolute rejection  
of either arena or the underlying endeavor to make sense of things.
>
> I don't know if this is a rhetorical question or not but isn't it a  
> given that Pynchon doesn't--couldn't possibly--take this stuff  
> seriously?  That Pynchon's belief system includes card reading and  
> Madame Blavatsky and the Rosecrusians, et al?  Does anyone--leave  
> alone Pynchon--in his right mind, with a proper education, with no  
> emotional issues, believe in this stuff?

Pynchon has pretty much said he doesn't want his picture taken for   
what amounts to superstitious reasons. So I don't take it as a given.  
But I agree that he frequently satirizes occultism, and he is deeply  
critical of Calvinism. Tv too, though he appears to watch some. He  
also uses Christian symbols and motifs with great skill and even  
respect, though I cannot speak to his use of Tarot. The degree to  
which this is novelistic  vs a reflection of his own sympathies has  
stirred up some interesting debates which have not led me to any  
conclusions. Philosophically , I see something most along the lines  
of Buddhism but with a more western sense of both tragedy and comedy.  
Maybe this comes from a perception that it  is easier to see what TRP  
dislikes and rejects than what he admires.The Buddhist thing of not  
this , not this. not that.
>
> I think it suits his novelistic purposes.
I don't think you will get much argument there. The question is what  
are his novelistic purposes?
> It adds a color.
And beyond the range of visible light
>
> Hemingway said he liked Catholicism because the pageantry it  
> reminded him of bullfights.