Pynchon world-paranoia (?)

Mon Mar 12 11:54:20 CDT 2012

Someone given to runaway paranoia might believe that world-paranoia is the world; life is the will to paranoia, the world as will and paranoia, the ultimate Form or Ideal from which all actual things issue is not Good but the Paranoid.  Not Being, but Paranoia.  Paranoia as essence.  Paranoia as substance.
But of course a paranoid person would never think that, would they....
That's the problem.  Paranoia can only be discussed and defined outside of paranoia, and there must be a problem with that, because the most a non-paranoid person could do to further define paranoia would be to rely on existing definitions of paranoia, which are driven by non-paranoid persons.
Or is the definition and parameters of paranoia driven by paranoia?
A runaway arch-rational paranoid given to sarcasm or irony might say Paranoia is Reason.
Or maybe Paranoia is Reason...

From: bledwelder at hotmail.com
To: mackin.paul at verizon.net; pynchon-l at waste.org
Subject: RE: Pynchon world-paranoia (?)
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2012 11:19:04 -0500

PaulM.:> Pynchon world paranoia--in the face of indisputable evidence, there is 
> the realization that someone or something is out to get us, or, for 
> many, in some little-understood way, out to help us as well.
> 
> Pynchon world paranoia is a complete way of life. It provides for all 
> our needs--religious, social, sexual, financial, everything.

I am very interested in this idea, that there is a metaphysical world-paranoia that people participate in actuality.  The paranoia is real, apart from the individual.  Then there is sub-ideals of world-paranoia, the paranoias that are true and those that are false, despite all evidence to the contrary, etc., you could build a whole system.
The former one, world-paranoia that is correct--
No that can't be right.  If you were paranoid about everything as a way of life, as a principle of life, you couldn't possibly be right about everything.  In fact that would be absurd, being paranoid about everything.  Even in fiction that would be impossible.
But I like the idea that world-paranoia--no, I'm wrong about that, you're right, you could be paranoid about everything, you'd just have to keep it to yourself, which is what functional paranoids succeed in doing.  Not the grandiose ones though, they're doomed.
Then again, I suppose when you consider that paranoias may for the most part result from fear, then it may well be true.
Which is what makes modern arch-rationalist paranoias so interesting, right, because to them it is imPossible that Reason issues out of fear.  To think otherwise is to be uttering patent nonsense, and if you even suggest as much distinguishes you as an irrational evil idiot--
Some arch-rationalists, the grandiose kind, are paranoid as a principle of life I suppose.  They have to be distinguished from say your average schlemiel who is suspicious of everything because their father beat them relentless and senseless.
And incidently, grandiose delusional paranoids are not necessarily schizophrenic.  Schizophrenia involves hallucinations, being told by external beings what's what, as it were, etc.  Then again, when you consider Socrates's daemon... bwah.

> Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2012 12:55:23 -0500
> From: mackin.paul at verizon.net
> To: pynchon-l at waste.org
> Subject: Re: Gravity's Rainbow in depth on Studio 360
> 
> On 3/10/2012 11:54 AM, Bled Welder wrote:
> > Perhaps a new term or terms, or reterming is in order.
> >
> > According to my distinction below, you have:
> >
> > 1. paranoia
> > 2. runaway paranoia
> >
> > Two is close to clinical paranoia. Maybe rather a new term for number
> > one paranoia. Besides positive, threatening. Something not so obvious.
> > Intuitive? No, god no, wrong, wrong.
> >
> > It could be rational paranoia; then you's have runaway rational
> > paranoia. Because the aboslutely fascinating thing about runaway
> > paranoia is that it is often the product of high intelligence, and
> > Nothing can convince a runaway paranoid (paranoiac is bad term) away
> > from their delusional conclusions. In fact, any contrary opinion only
> > serves to further prove their views.
> >
> > Grandiose paranoids are the most fascinating, and grandiose runaway
> > paranoids the most fascinating of all. My contribution to the history of
> > literary criticism happens to be that Don Quixote is a grandiose runaway
> > paranoid. They are very dangerous people, because nothing they do in
> > light of their delusions can ever be wrong, because their delusions are
> > absolute fact and they act according to the dictates of their delusions.
> > In Quixote's case, brutalizing innocent people in the name of the rules
> > of knight errancy.
> >
> > In a more classic case, highly intelligent people who are
> > arch-rationalists believe any contradiction of their statements and
> > beliefs and actions are necessarily irrational, by definition, and are
> > thus evil, and irrational people--which becomes everybody--are out to
> > destroy him...
> >
> 
> I see two kinds of paranoia
> 
> Real world paranoia (sometimes requiring medical treatment, sometimes 
> better left alone.
> 
> Pynchon world paranoia--in the face of indisputable evidence, there is 
> the realization that someone or something is out to get us, or, for 
> many, in some little-understood way, out to help us as well.
> 
> Pynchon world paranoia is a complete way of life. It provides for all 
> our needs--religious, social, sexual, financial, everything.
> 
> Oh yes, for folks with a condition termed delusion-insufficiency there 
> is the drug oneirene.
> 
> It's all there for us, and of course officially defined, so that there 
> will be no confusion.
> 
> P
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2012 10:17:08 -0600
> > Subject: Re: Gravity's Rainbow in depth on Studio 360
> > From: bledWelder at hotmail.com
> > To: kbob42 at gmail.com; fqmorris at gmail.com
> > CC: brook7 at sover.net; pynchon-l at waste.org
> >
> > I didnt want to be the person to point this out because moderacy is not
> > much a part of me, to date anyway, but paranoia in moderation is a very
> > positive and valuable thing.
> >
> > Unless it is deFined by its excesses, ie delusions. But I put it to you,
> > Who or What is the Force that so defines it, if not those who may be
> > revealed, unfolded by the positive paranoia...?
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> >
> > From: Keith Davis
> > Sent: 10 Mar 2012 15:19:37 GMT
> > To: David Morris
> > Cc: Joseph Tracy,P-list
> > Subject: Re: Gravity's Rainbow in depth on Studio 360
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 9:22 AM, David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com
> > <mailto:fqmorris at gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> >     Read the whole post.
> >
> >     http://waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l&month=0006&msg=46451&keywords=Dali%20Morris
> >     <http://waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l&month=0006&msg=46451&keywords=Dali%20Morris>
> >
> >
> > This is sort of where it started? Good post. Agreed P's writing's seem
> > primarily related to our search for meaning and a sense of our place in
> > relation to the Cosmos. Not sure if I'd call that "religious", but I
> > understood what you meant by it. I think that's the main attraction,
> > aside from the beauty of the writing itself.
> > If paranoia or pornography are seen as possible windows through which to
> > get a glimpse of or to find the beginning of a path towards a sense of
> > meaning, then that might be seen as positive. To include them both in
> > the same category doesn't seem quite right, though. Paranoia seems by
> > definition to be a negative. Pornography, as something that stimulates
> > sexual desire, relies on a personal context to define it as positive or
> > negative.
> > The issue again is definition, and how definitions shift according to
> > social conventions.
> >
> > --
> > www.innergroovemusic.com <http://www.innergroovemusic.com>
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20120312/65d28bf2/attachment.html>