Gravity's Rainbow in depth on Studio 360

[Joseph Tracy]

On Mar 9, 2012, at 8:07 PM, David Morris wrote:

> On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 5:03 PM, Joseph Tracy <brook7 at sover.net> wrote:
>> 
>>> Paranoia has its religious aspect: Is the "order" we see in the cosmos the product of an hidden power (and if so, why is it hidden?)?
>> 
>> The problem here is that we don't really see anything like a religious order in our cosmos, that way of seeing is culturally imposed and enforced by culture propaganda and violence. It's not so much a direct result of a  personal or group perception of an order in the cosmos.  The paranoid  aspects of religion seem to arrive at  that point where the myth and language and culture wars  becomes as powerful as common experience.
>> 
> 
> I think you miss this religious-paranoia point.  "Intelligent Design"
> is more than an ignorant anti-science concept,
I agree and I think I understand what you are saying. Rather reminiscent of something I heard from R A Wilson. I agree that direct experience of the sublime patterns in nature might easily suggest a creator or creators, and many hunter gatherers have doings with spirits( usually plural). But no natural , non cultural experience would give you reason to project a male, omnipotent deity with a set of laws that govern your destiny..  All this is directly related to cultural structures rather than a sincere quest to understand how things work. 
> but maybe scientists
> are too close to the trees to see the forest.  Think about mathematics
> (as Pynchon does in AtD).  Is math something invented, or is it
> inherent in the "creation?"  We all see an amazing order in all levels
> of the cosmos.  Is it the product of random chance?
I'm not big on random chance as explaining the cosmos. I t doesn't work for me.
>  Aquinas had a
> point that I think Pynchon considers valid.  This "all is random"
> thought scared Pointsman to his core (If I remember correctly).  "God"
> is the ultimate GR "They." 
Yes that is the end psychology of the single dude running everything. I get that.  That is where paranoia grows. 
What I'm saying is that this  hierarchic concept of spirit forces or creator doesn't arise organically and sincerely from inquiry and the build up of reliable knowledge. The greeks argued and talked over all this stuff but what they fought over was territory and trade routes and freedom from occupation.  Same, mostly, in India. Only the big warlike cultures try to control what stories people tell to explain the world.
> 
>>> Paranoia also means the act of making connections between data points, things seen into things perceived.  At the root of paranoia is the
>>> question, "Is what I'm seeing really there, or is it the product of my mind?"
>> 
>> Part of the issue here is the sharp duality inherent in the word. Paranoia as self delusion( its most common pejorative usage) is the untested, unexamined acceptance that the patterns perceived are really there.
>> It all hinges on whether you interpret 'para' as irregular/sick/delusional or  simply beside/alternate, doesn't it? Otherwise it can also mean an apprehensiveness based on limited data that may or may not indicate a real existing systemic pattern of abuse of power. This is how I tend to innately think of the word since in most words that use the Gk. root para it has no negative connotations. Another ingredient of paranoia the way virtually everyone uses it  is fear.
> 
> You have to follow Pynchon's definition of the word.
> 
> David Morris