Grace via Thomas Aquinas

[Smoke Teff]

Really appreciate this discussion. Regret I don't have the same
reservoir of rigor and scholarship for this particular discussion,
but...

Regarding the ambiguity of the ending...


One of the reason Pynchon's books seem almost divinely brilliant, to
me, is the way they are not only so brilliant and felt but also so
ambivalent. It seems that he accounts for the feelings of human beings
in way that is often deeply empathetic but also equanimous.

Ambivalence seems to be the apprehension that things are "exactly what
they [are.]" Good or bad--these are reductions and interpretations in
a universe that is by necessity exactly what it is. The inclination
that the ambivalent existence is ultimately, or fundamentally, or
eventually...marginally good, or at least more good than bad, on
margin, or at least some way of apprehending being that isn't
perfectly expressible in words but is closer to "good" than "bad" as
we understand them...

I think that has something to do with the understanding of Grace. The
marginal but fundamental and eternal goodness of the microest and
macroest instantiations of creation. The vaporous, invisible workings
of God's/creation's goodness. As creation gets filtered through the
binary of life and death...does grace work through life? Is grace what
moves creation toward life? Are the acts and instantiations of the
human sense of "the good" the metaphysical consequence of grace's
translation into matter?

To connect it with a passage from M&D that's been on my mind a lot today...

“tho’ now it can feel something undeniably on the way, something it
cannot conceive of, perhaps as Humans apprehend God,--as a Force they
are ever just about to become acquainted with….”

p. 88

Perhaps the Chums are flying toward the apprehension of
God(-in-all-that-exists)? Perhaps flying toward it is essentially the
only way to apprehend it? As close as we get, and the only conceivable
star by which to steer our lives--save for our glimpses of actual
connection, which are so blinding, that they result not in a total
apprehension, but an obliteration of all apprehension.



On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 5:57 PM, Paul Mackin <mackin.paul at gmail.com> wrote:
> '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
>
>
-
Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l