TCoL49 - relevance - from lithub.com

[David Morris]

It goes without saying that Pynchon isn't orthodox about anything, so why
would anyone quibble about interpretive readings that play with
Gnosticism's concepts free from Gnostic orthodoxy? WTF is the point of such
an argument? Why would it ever be considered relevant?

David Morris

On Saturday, July 9, 2016, Monte Davis <montedavis49 at gmail.com> wrote:

> ​KFL > ​we've gone through Eddins & Voegelin debates since a former
> millennium again and again
>
> As the archives will remind you, I haven't participated in those debates.
> I've never read Voegelin. My "VERY idiosyncratic modern reading" is
> shorthand for "I can't judge how well Eddins reads Voegelin, still less how
> Voegelin in his time read Gnostic studies -- but from my own understanding
> of Gnostic studies, Eddins' POV is very much his own, not a consensus."
>
> That said, Eddins had a greater influence on my own view of GR (the first
> three Pynchon novels as a whole, not so much) than any critic since Schaub
> and Hite. For me, it brought a useful coherence to what previously seemed
> many conflicting and overlapping stances vis-a-vis "Transcendence And How
> to Get There...Or Is It a Trap?"
>
> Understand: I DO NOT KNOW AND DO NOT CARE whether Eddins is a
> true/legitimate/good expositor of Voegelin, or whether either of them is a
> true/legitimate/good expositor of Gnostic scholarship. I like 'The Gnostic
> Pynchon' as an insightful reading of GR...period.
>
> PS -- I've nothing to say about the relationship of any of this to
> Heidegger, whom I have tried  to read half a dozen times without success.
> To me, all of Heidegger -- much of Hegel, too -- is either beyond my
> intellectual grasp or incoherent word-spinning, or possibly both. Pity me
> as a philistine and pass by.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20160709/8d842969/attachment.html>