Grace via Thomas Aquinas

Tue Jan 30 20:55:58 CST 2018

Well, you'll never pin down Pynchon.  How many facets on Grace can he weave
together?  It's a considered mix, not without a point, but it is all an act
of play.

David Morris

On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 5:58 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
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20180131/8a15c90f/attachment.html>