Grace again. Misc.

Tue Aug 1 15:02:07 CDT 2017

BTW, Clancy Sigal has something to say about To Have and Have Not in his
Hemingway book.

(It's a good thing to get old and still have a grip on everything you've
did and read. And stay on top of things. He even read the wonderful book of
Paul Hendrickson, Hemingway's Boat.)

2017-08-01 21:50 GMT+02:00 Erik T. Burns <eburns at gmail.com>:

> A-and vice versa. That's why it worked.
> ------------------------------
> From: Paul Mackin <mackin.paul at gmail.com>
> Sent: ‎8/‎1/‎2017 20:49
> To: Jochen Stremmel <jstremmel at gmail.com>; pynchon -l
> <pynchon-l at waste.org>
> Subject: Re: Grace again. Misc.
>
> Bacall was Bogey's grace.
>
> On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 3:34 PM, Jochen Stremmel <jstremmel at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> But you know how to whistle, don't you?
>>
>> 2017-08-01 21:28 GMT+02:00 Paul Mackin <mackin.paul at gmail.com>:
>>
>>> I've never heard tell of any theologians on the p-list but it seems to
>>> me Luther's notion of grace is so otherworldly it could be of little use to
>>> novelists. It's just too totally other, as Luther's God is totally other.
>>> It doesn't help poor sinful humanity to be good. It doesn't make dodos talk
>>> or Byron eternal.  It doesn't do anything material or physical.  It IS
>>> free.  You don't have to do anything, or say anything. You don't even have
>>> to whistle.  It CAN save you from damnation, but that's off in eternity
>>> somewhere.
>>>
>>> On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 2:09 AM, Kai Frederik Lorentzen <
>>> lorentzen at hotmail.de> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes, but the question is whether Pynchon's use of the word is, perhaps,
>>>> closer to Luther's teaching on Grace than it is to the other ones that were
>>>> mentioned in this thread.
>>>>
>>>> Is there a theologian on board?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Am 31.07.2017 um 12:56 schrieb David Morris:
>>>>
>>>> Luther's revolution was born of his concept of Grace.  Say "grace,"
>>>> hear Luther.
>>>>
>>>> David Morris
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 2:32 AM Kai Frederik Lorentzen <
>>>> lorentzen at hotmail.de> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Could it be that Pynchon's understanding of Grace is Lutheran?
>>>>>
>>>>> > ... Martin Luther’s theology can be fundamentally construed as the
>>>>> development of his thought regarding the nature of grace, the nature of
>>>>> God’s favor and blessing bestowed upon undeserving human beings. The many
>>>>> dimensions of Luther’s biblical teaching and theological reflection have,
>>>>> in the background a desire to understand God’s grace most fully revealed in
>>>>> Jesus Christ. As such, Luther’s concepts of the righteousness of God,
>>>>> justification by faith, the bound will, the distinction of law and gospel,
>>>>> the new obedience, the “happy exchange,” and many related concepts are, at
>>>>> heart, attempts to describe what it is to have a God of grace.
>>>>> Most interpreters have rightly understood that in Luther’s view, to
>>>>> have a gracious God means to have a God who does not require human beings
>>>>> to fulfill a set of prerequisites in order to receive God’s gift in Christ
>>>>> or to reciprocate God’s giving in order to continue receiving Christ and
>>>>> his benefits. For Luther, to have a God of grace means to believe and trust
>>>>> that through Jesus Christ, God has already met all prerequisites and
>>>>> fulfilled all reciprocations. On this point, Luther found himself breaking
>>>>> new ground (or recovering lost ground) in the understanding of divine
>>>>> grace. Luther “broke” with those theological forebears who taught that
>>>>> divine grace was, in one way or another, partly dependent on human willing
>>>>> and doing. For Luther, God graciously wills and works “all in all.”
>>>>> Nevertheless, when Luther’s many descriptions of what it is to “have a
>>>>> gracious God” are analyzed, a more nuanced understanding of the
>>>>> relationship between the One giving the gift and the ones receiving it
>>>>> begins to reveal itself. For Luther, faith—that gracious means through
>>>>> which God graciously bestows the righteousness of Christ—creates a dynamic
>>>>> rather than static experience of possessing and being possessed of a God of
>>>>> grace ... <
>>>>>
>>>>> http://religion.oxfordre.com/view/10.1093/acrefore/978019934
>>>>> 0378.001.0001/acrefore-9780199340378-e-335
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Am 30.07.2017 um 13:58 schrieb Mark Kohut:
>>>>>
>>>>> In Calvinism and other religious traditions, grace gets earned--or
>>>>> shown-- by human free will choices.
>>>>>
>>>>> if grace is not earned or shown-- by free will human choices, then
>>>>> grace as Pynchon uses it, is unearned, totally unexpected (by Lew and in
>>>>> the text) and is somehow a function of the cosmos. Chance or otherwise. No?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, Jul 30, 2017 at 7:41 AM, David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> If Free Will replaces Grace, then it is it's equal, not its opposite.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> David Morris
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, Jul 30, 2017 at 5:27 AM Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Now THAT'S an answer I did not expect---nor really know (although I
>>>>>>> know some of that shit from that tradition).
>>>>>>> Another theologian rendered into the dustbin of churchyards because
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>> Augustine's dominance.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A heretic, P's tradition. One might say a theological preterite,
>>>>>>> analogously speaking? As Bailey alludes, and Morris fills in:
>>>>>>> a kind of theological shlemiel, maybe? Profane Pelagius.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm going to suggest that as Pynchon transformed the concept of
>>>>>>> Grace within the religious tradition, for him
>>>>>>> in the fiction, it became like "the free will" of the cosmos---which
>>>>>>> might all be predetermined, of course, per your observation---
>>>>>>> when Lew experienced it unexpectedly.....when Against the Day
>>>>>>> ends....
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sat, Jul 29, 2017 at 5:16 PM, Paul Mackin <mackin.paul at gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In the way back, Pelagius (St Agustine's antagonist) thought we
>>>>>>>> didn't need Grace--that our free will was sufficient to overcome sin. So,
>>>>>>>> the opposite of Grace is Free Will.  Which science now says doesn't exist.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sat, Jul 29, 2017 at 4:03 PM, Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> From the wayback (but eternal?) religious uses, the opposite might
>>>>>>>>> be damnation.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What might it be in Pynchon's transformation of the meaning of the
>>>>>>>>> word?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Jul 29, 2017 at 3:28 PM, Jochen Stremmel <
>>>>>>>>> jstremmel at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You are the native speaker, Mark, but I would say it's bullshit
>>>>>>>>>> if you don't provide context. What kind of grace? You have disgrace, you
>>>>>>>>>> have clumsiness, I'm sure you have more opposites of grace.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 2017-07-29 21:11 GMT+02:00 Erik T. Burns <eburns at gmail.com>:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I suggest "trump"
>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>> From: Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: ‎7/‎29/‎2017 20:06
>>>>>>>>>>> To: pynchon -l <pynchon-l at waste.org>
>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Grace again. Misc.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Gracelessness is an absence of grace, but the English language
>>>>>>>>>>> lacks a word for the opposite of grace.--Cass Sunstein, very
>>>>>>>>>>> recent essay.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20170801/e2414a16/attachment.html>