List of agnostics

[David Morris]

You offer little, but you ask so much.  And all the while you pretend to
have wisdom.  I see no there where you are, untill you offer more.

David Morris

On Thursday, June 28, 2012, Lemuel Underwing wrote:

>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Lemuel Underwing <luunderwing at gmail.com <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
> 'luunderwing at gmail.com');>>
> Date: Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 7:27 PM
> Subject: Re: List of agnostics
> To: Paul Mackin <mackin.paul at verizon.net <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
> 'mackin.paul at verizon.net');>>
>
>
> Mr. Malignd, you will forgive me if I have attempted to decide what you
> can or cannot post but I hope you see my point, the religious (or
> nonreligious) beliefs of the PList are agonizingly boring. Who cares? Only
> those who wish to Pontificate at length some venomous twaddle.
> If you really want to have such an argument outside of the context of
> Pynchon should you not go elsewhere?
> This is the *Pynchon* List, no?
> Mr. Greenlief, do yourself a favor and finish M&D, it is my current
> opinion, to the chagrin of others on this list, that this is Pynchon's most
> poetic novel.
>
> Mr. Mackin & Mr Morris you make interesting points. Much of the
> 'spiritualism' in GR (and M&D for that matter) ought to be taken with a
> grain of salt, Dixon's Ley Lines, Peter Redztinger's (sp?) personal Jesus &
> his Golems, the Old Hell-Cat of Raby Castle come to mind... Yet Mason, ever
> the Melancholy Deist, does seem to adapt some of these Mythologizing
> inclinations, not out of belief in them, but rather as stories or myths to
> amiably pass the time on his own in Ireland or in the Frigid North.
> Still, these are to be taken with a hint of Irony.
> Yet what are we to make of the Frenchman's Duck? Dixon's Watch?
> Is not the S-Gerat referred to as "mythical"? The folks at the Movie-House
> at the very end might think of it as such.
> The Duck is taken by the Crew as just another Frenchman's Fantasy until
> it's presence becomes known along the Line, for instance.
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 3:35 PM, Paul Mackin <mackin.paul at verizon.net<javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'mackin.paul at verizon.net');>
> > wrote:
>
>  On 6/28/2012 2:00 PM, Phillip Greenlief wrote:
>
> comrade lemuel asked if we might explore religion/faith/spirituality in
> pynchon, and i've been musing on that ... here are some thoughts:
>
> i don't see any obvious reliance on, or confrontations with, faith in
> pynchon
>
>
> Spiritualism in GR is treated in a rather funny way.  On the one hand, the
> seances are  among the various  often quite funny  quackeries that have
> been assembled at White Visitation in the service of winning the war.  On
> the other hand, there seem to be real connections made with the dead, and
> of course the dead weren't always dead--their lives are part of the story
> too.  So, a faith orientation serves as  a narrative device. Does this
> count?
>
> Same with Dixon and Rebekah.
>
> Then there's Gnosticism.
>
> As far as spirituality is concerned, does spirituality involve faith in
> the supernatural (like spiritualism does for some)?  Is seeing a soul in
> every stone something that happens outside our mind.  Any suspension of the
> laws of nature required? Probably not, therefore not part of the discusion.
>
> P
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  (although, i'm ashamed to admit, i have never finished M&D, and i feel
> there may be evidence there - alas!) in the way you see this process
> explored in say, the films of ingmar bergman, where, in the 50's in
> particular, he was often bumping up against the classic question, "god, why
> have you forsaken me?" (as in SEVENTH SEAL, WINTER LIGHT, VIRGIN SPRING,
> etc). nor do i see any obvious attempts to sum up spirituality - like you
> get in his FANNY AND ALEXANDER, where the jewish merchant's son describes
> (or, rather, quotes spinoza?) humanity and its deeds as "god's thought",
> which is what his father believes; whereas he believes that we are "god's
> nightmares".
>
> no, in pynchon, i find a strong tradition of existentialists, who mold
> their own moral/ethical codes based on their experience and personal
> history. sarte said (in his tract, EXISTENTIALISM IS A HUMANISM) it didn't
> matter whether you are a believer or not, you could include religion as
> just another tool in your toolkit that allows you to forge said moral code.
> (ok, i'm paraphrasing!) but regardless, your actions are what defines you,
> not your rhetoric.
>
> seems to me that slothrup, the traverse family, oedipa maas, doc sportello
> and the rest of pynchon's heroes take on this task and deal with what is on
> their plate. their deeds usually speak stronger than their words. they are
> usually bumping up against foes whose rhetoric and actions are, shall we
> say, sometimes not in perfect alignment.
>
> it does please me, as a native, that the one example that comes to mind of
> a kind of loose portrayal of spirituality that (someone) was citing
> yesterday that "we are all connected" is illustrated in AGAINST THE DAY in
> the chapter where frank traverse ingests a peyote-like substance and has
> classic shamanic visions. nice.
>
> without investigating further, that's all i can come up with off the
> tattered cuff.
>
> phillip
>
>
>  ------------------------------
> *From:* Ian Livingston <igrlivingston at gmail.com>
> *To:* Lemuel Underwing <luunderwing at gmail.com>
> *Cc:* Jude Bloom <jude at bloomradio.com>; "mali
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20120628/c0f2b420/attachment.html>