Gravity's Rainbow in depth on Studio 360

[Paul Mackin]

On 3/10/2012 9:28 AM, Bled Welder wrote:
> What is a little nutty about having a pretty sympathetic view of anarchists?

Think Joseph had the Professor Cory incident in mind.

>
> Yes, there is such a thing as a conventional interpretation of history.
> Off the top of the head: the U.S. does everything for the sake of peace.
> In fact it's almost impossible for an American to disagree with that
> idea, so conventional is its wisdom--

Conventional was a misleading word--I meant history done by actual 
historians. Joseph wondered if all the talk about delusional and 
paranoia precluded non=delusional interpretations and I said positively not.

P


>
>
>  > Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2012 09:19:56 -0500
>  > From: mackin.paul at verizon.net
>  > To: pynchon-l at waste.org
>  > Subject: Re: Gravity's Rainbow in depth on Studio 360
>  >
>  > On 3/9/2012 6:03 PM, Joseph Tracy wrote:
>  > >
>  > > On Mar 9, 2012, at 3:17 PM, David Morris wrote:
>  > >
>  > >> On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 12:00 PM, Paul
> Mackin<mackin.paul at verizon.net> wrote:
>  > >>> On 3/9/2012 12:12 PM, Joseph Tracy wrote:
>  > >>>>
>  > >>>> My thoughts are not facetious in the sense of any personal
> derision, I am trying to be intellectually feisty and to point out what
> I disagree with and why without intending any personal affront. I also
> hope for thoughtful rebuttal, because I want to look at the questions
> from different angles. What I am trying to express with different formal
> approaches is a sincere problem with the logic of this line of thought
> that seems to me to be saying that Pynchon is using GR to challenge any
> attempt to understand comprehensive patterns in history, showing that
> all such attempts amount to paranoid delusions. Is that the gist of what
> you or Paul are saying or am I off?
>  > >>>>
>  > >>>
>  > >>> Speaking for me, I don't think Pynchon is challenging more
> conventional interpretations of history at all--he's not some kind of nut.
>  > > Well I don't know what you mean by more conventional
> interpretations. That's pretty big and to my mind includes a lot of self
> congratulatory nonsense in praise of the dominant culture. Also Pynchon
> seems at least a little nutty . I mean he chose Irwin Corey to represent
> him for a book award.. No photos. Takes a pretty sympathetic view of
> anarchists. He is certainly emphasizing underrepresented aspects of
> history, and for better or worse has influenced my own understanding of
> history toward something many would find unconventional or at least
> minority. Is there really such a thing as a conventional interpretation
> of history, or is that idea only possible in an age of mass media?
>  > >>>
>  >
>  > I meant actual historians as opposed to fiction writers--people attached
>  > to university history departments, although there are exceptions.
>  >
>  > Pynchon does sometimes act a little nutty but he's not a flake--he knows
>  > the difference between historians and novelists, even genius ones, plus
>  > he respects the right of each to exist and do their thing. (of course I
>  > guessing on the latter)
>  >
>  > P
>  >
>  > >>> He's just being very imaginative in putting a huge amount of
> emphasis on certain aspects of reality--delusion, pornography, mercenary
> war profiteering. It's his method. Don't know if the Greeks had a word
> for it--maybe it's part synecdoch, part hyperbole. I just say pynchonize.
>  > >
>  > >>>
>  > >>> P
>  > >>
>  > >> OK, to respond to this question (instead of your earlier rebuttal),
>  > >> despite the myriad of accurate and often obscure historical facts in
>  > >> GR, I think calling it an historical novel is to miss its real
>  > >> intentions.
>  > > I agree. I think history allows him to address the human reality
> and human consciousness in a grounded way, providing depth, texture,
> specificity, gravity. But he is also reevaluating WW2 with an alternate
> or outsider POV reminiscent of Vonnegut, Heller, others.
>  > >> GR's main goal (amidst all of the beautiful everything
>  > >> else) is to dissect from as many angles as possible the nature of
>  > >> human consciousness. In GR's world paranoia is not a pathology, or if
>  > >> it is, it is one inherent with the advent of human consciousness.
>  > >> 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.
>  > >> 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.
>  > >
>  > >> This is a question common to a person tripping on acid, which
>  > >> Pynchon clearly did plenty of in the 70's, reportedly while writing
>  > >> GR.
>  > > Truly so, but this question-"Is what I'm seeing really there, or is
> it the product of my
>  > > mind?" -is also a question which is essential to the scientific
> method. Part of the power of my own psychedelic experiences was to
> reify, to make directly experiential the poetic beauty of scientific
> knowledge along also with dimensions of mind/spirit not obvious apart
> from altered states of consciousness. Both enhanced sensory experience
> and analysis understanding seem to become very fluid and active and
> interactive in the altered state. You see in a different way and it
> makes your mind change and you think in a different way and it affects
> your sensory perception and the boundaries between mind body inside
> outside become less definite.
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >>
>  > >> Another one of the foundational problems Pynchon points out with human
>  > >> consciousness (HC) is the knowledge of our impending, inevitable
>  > >> death, and all that is done in reaction to that knowledge (see the
>  > >> Busby Berkeley scene of the rats leaving their cages early on at the
>  > >> White Visitation: If only men could forget that they're going to die).
>  > >>
>  > >> And yet another foundational HC problem is the Freudian concept of
>  > >> "the Return of the Repressed," epitomized by shit being transformed
>  > >> into money, power, technology, etc. Pynchon clearly read N.O.Brown's
>  > >> "Life Against Death" and incorporated much of it into GR. The biggest
>  > >> question grappled with in that book is whether man is irredeemably
>  > >> repressed/pathological, or redeemable/healable.
>  > > fascinating topic. love to delve into that one more.
>  > >>
>  > >> Anyway, that enough for now.
>  > >>
>  > >> David Morris
>  > >
>  > >
>  >