Grace via Thomas Aquinas

[Paul Mackin]

'Things were exactly what they were,' thinks Lew.  Can this phrase possibly
be translated to something like 'things exist'?  If so, it might explain
the grace connection. From a religious perspective, it is only by the grace
of God that anything in the universe exists.

The word 'thing' does or can imply existence or being. It's one meaning of
the word.

So, if we're to identify grace with existence, what can flying toward
existence possibly mean?  I don't know.  Unless . . . . the chums have not
achieved reality yet, but hope to someday.

On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 5:43 AM, Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com> wrote:

> JT:
> "Things being exctly what they are does not exclude all religious
> understanding."
>
> My understanding of TE's Thomist explication is that Aquinas did seem
> to mean a kind of
> everywhereness of religious being.....for me in the context of AtD, I
> loved learning of panentheism (as distinct from pantheism)
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panentheism
>
> I want to suggest that TRP presents one of the most profound visions
> of ambiguity of ultimate belief here: In the fiction he means both
> religious and non-religious meanings at once.
>
>
> On 1/28/18, Joseph Tracy <brook7 at sover.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Very intriguing and insightful discussion.
> >
> > Not wanting to argue for argument’s sake but I read P’s use of grace in
> ATD
> > slightly differently, and hope this might add another dimension. Things
> > being exctly what they are does not exclude all religious understanding.
> It
> > is a good summary of certain lines of Buddhist or Taoist thought, and as
> an
> > experience is quite universal. But it also includes as Laura says the
> > preterite and is not limited to religious connotation.
> >
> >  Still he is choosing a western Christianized word with roots in Greek
> > mythology( Grace per se is simply not a "Thomist concept”. Aquinas is
> one of
> > several theological interpreters of a theological word originally adapted
> > for Christian use in both the letters of Paul and the Gospel of John).
> It is
> > an odd word that is not a teaching of Jesus but a theological/religious
> > interpretation of the unique nature of faith in the ’Christ’.  it is
> also a
> > word that has come to take on profound cultural weight that in many ways
> > transcends its dicey theological roots. One vision of that transcendent
> > beauty is much better known to most readers or persons than Aquinas , and
> > that is the song Amazing Grace where the core meaning includes 1)
> mercy,  2)
> > hearing reality/truth, and 3) seeing reality/truth, .  If you take away
> the
> > theological add-ons about divinity these qualities fit Lew’s experience
> > quite powerfully. He was clearly carrying a weight of guilt  from which
> he
> > is delivered and is then characterized by the difference between what he
> is
> > actually seeing/hearing and what those who hire him want him to see and
> > hear. I agree with the Joyce based interpretation of grace the Thomas E
> puts
> > forth that Pynchon has Lew choose the word grace to define his
> experience of
> > clarity and liberation both because it comes unbidden and because it is
> > transfigurative in the sense of liberation from illusions and from guilt
> and
> > unitive with the larger universe.
> >   The divinity may not be essential here but the quality of liberation
> and
> > acceptance as an improvement over where he was before this experience is
> > essential, hence the fittingness of the word grace.
> >
> >
> > So the question arises  is it even possible for anyone to see or
> understand
> > exactly what things are?  What would that be like? Is it just circular
> > nonsense, a meaningless equation- 5=5? Is it, as Siddhartha implied, an
> > experience that is untranslatable in words but available to anyone as
> > experience?
> >  Is it the nature of mind to always be sailing toward grace in the sense
> of
> > always accepting what is and also always wanting to expand the knowledge
> of
> > what is as one lives in time? And where does compassion come in? Because
> > compassion seems to be implicit in  Buddhism and Chistian grace and in
> Lew’s
> > experience and  his non-aggressive nature. As a detective he is more an
> > instrument of understanding and sorting the real from the false  than
> > catching the bad guy.
> >
> > I can accept the ambiguous nature of the final lines of ATD, and Thomas
> and
> > Monte make a good case for that, but for me it is ambiguous rather than
> > cynical or sinister. I suspect P knows it will be read both ways and
> want us
> > to think about whether the eucatastrophic conclusion promised by  agonist
> > belief systems  and also  logical positivism or techno salvation are
> really
> > seeing things as they are? Like GR he is putting the future in our hands
> > while pointing at our proclivity for self deception and self destruction.
> >
> > For me the problem with Aquinas is the problem with all theologies, they
> > wish to own and interpret experiences and realities that simply do not
> have
> > neat boundaries and that mortals are unqualified to conclusively
> interpret.
> > Aquinas is reasoning fairly accurately about the human appetite for a
> > transhuman knowledge but he casts the anwer to that hunger as “him” a
> male
> > god of omniscience and omnipotence, doling out appropriately sized soup
> > bowls of grace to those who come to the soup line with the proper
> > theological humility. This is not even Biblical, but simply invented
> > theology of early bishops inheriting patriarchal myths. But Aquinas
> knows he
> > is addressing a real experience of tranformative insight and presuming to
> > have an explanation for that experience is his gig as a priest. A
> Jehovah’s
> > witness is not much different, unless of course that is the one true
> path,
> > as are so many others.
> >  In that sense Lew’s perception of  things being exactly what they are
> is a
> > defense not against the experience of grace as some kind of divine
> > liberation ,  and not against grace as a Zen type direct and unfiltered
> > experience of suchness,  but against the theologies that seek to own and
> > define grace, against particular rules, or methods or precepts, against
> > claims of ownership or outcome that tend to enslavement, passivity  and
> > dangerous hierarchies rather than shared insight, and compassion or even
> > shared food, which was central to how Jesus taught.
> >    What makes me see the ending of ATD as ambiguous rather than cynical
> is
> > the transformation of the Chums over the course of the novel. They reject
> > blind service to an unknown authority, make friends and allies of those
> > being portrayed as enemies, realize their need for the feminine , both
> > earthly and divine and they become more democratic and wary of war. If
> the
> > chums represent fiction itself and the artists’/ humans highest dreams
> and
> > insights, they have gone from being Thomist in their orientation( tools
> of
> > the mighty presuming to kick butt in one-a-them just wars) to being the
> > fragile but hopeful vision that we can change and find more compassionate
> > and earth-friendly ways.
> >
> > I know I am too hard on Aquinas here, but let’s just say I have my
> reasons.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -
> > Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?listpynchon-l
> >
> -
> Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?listpynchon-l
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20180130/da8dd46f/attachment.html>