GR translation: a dialectic of word made flesh

J Tracy brook7 at sover.net
Tue Jan 28 19:32:12 UTC 2025


The phrase "the word made flesh" is from the first Chapter of the Gospel of John (And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.)and is a central orthodox christian doctrine whose purpose in John is to refute the Gnostic idea that Jesus was more spirit than flesh.   So I think what is happening  is clearly  "a dialectic of (word made flesh)”.  

 The problem Ensian faces  is similar to the dispute among  early believers between a gnostic interpretation and the surviving orthodox doctrine which more strongly asserts the full humanity and physicality of Jesus and of human salvation.  The gnostics, like Enzian, did not like the implications of fleshly transitions -  of decomposition, to shit, to dust, or  of impermanence, since spirit is eternal and “changes not”,  or at least is asserted to be so in many OT  Biblical passages.  Enzian’s associates  have cut themselves off from earthly reproduction ( nature’s circle of death and birth) and are pursuing  transcendence through heroic combat with( revenge against) evil.  He himself is gay and will bear no children.  There is also a dialectic here between action and equal and opposite reaction, whose dangers are fully apparent in the dawn of nuclear war. I think this may be what Enzian sees as the" worst trap” of his own inner dialectic. (It is a horrible trap and we are in it as a culture, demonizing the proposed other to justify behaving like Demons.)  

I think Mark is saying the same thing with less elaboration.  

> On Jan 8, 2025, at 3:46 AM, Mike Jing <gravitys.rainbow.cn at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> V321.35-37, P326.22-24   The Erdschweinhöhle is in one of the worst traps
> of all, a dialectic of word made flesh, flesh moving toward something else.
> . . . Enzian sees the trap clearly, but not the way out. . . .
> 
> In "a dialectic of word made flesh", is it "a dialectic of (word made
> flesh)", or "(a dialectic of word) made flesh"? In other words, does "made
> flesh" only modify the word "word", or does it modify the phrase "a
> dialectic of word"?
> --
> Pynchon-L: https://waste.org/mailman/listinfo/pynchon-l





More information about the Pynchon-l mailing list