Percy-L: Literary, Religious, Scientific, and Philosophical Discussion of Walker Percy

["Parlin, Steven" <PARLINS AT culver.org>]

Jim, since Gnosticism is on the table again, it seems fitting to include it
in a reply to your questions about the scientific and literary approaches to
truth. I wasn't involved in the previous discussion on Gnosticism, but I
think I can guess exactly how the arguments unfolded. I don't need to check
the archives on this one. It's predictable enough. Aside from a few
fashionable changes in dress here and there, the arguments really haven't
changed much in, well, about 2000 years, give or take. 

Nevertheless, it seems perfectly fitting to include Gnosticism in this
question about science, for this was one of Percy's primary concerns about
our predicament; that is, we know more about the world now than ever before
(ala gnosticism), and conversely know less about our selves and our place in
the world ("Lost in the Cosmos"). And this has had its fatal consequences. 

The reason this struck me so poignantly was that I am currently working on
my teaching evaluation portfolio for the school I work for, and one of the
requirements is to articulate my philosophy of education. Subsequently, one
of the themes I keep arriving at is this very distinction: We have given
ourselves over to a kind of education that treats the world as an object to
be dismembered, classified, manipulated and reshaped, and we have trusted in
a way of knowing that provides us the illusion of having power over the
world and ourselves. 

So, there it is: The scientific approach is a disordered attempt at mastery
over Truth; The literary approach is one of obedient submission to the order
of Truth. In fact, Percy repeatedly said that when he forced is writing,
when he inserted himself into it and controlled it, when he was trying to
make an argument in his fiction, he always produced garbage. He had to
submit to the act of it and let the stories find themselves.  And, to be
sure, the scientific approach to truth is ultimately a form of Gnosticism,
and I dare say a drive toward death -our "Thanatos Syndrome".  

Perhaps the most salient example of the fatal danger involved with this kind
of Gnostic orientation to the world is revealed in the building of the
atomic bomb. (Just one of many examples of this age).  Even more horrifying
than the detonation of the bomb was the Gnostic lust for knowledge expressed
by the scientists themselves and the power it brought. Nowhere have I seen
this so aptly expressed as in this quote from a celebrated physicist in The
Day after Trinity, a film documentary about the team of American scientists
who produced the first atomic bomb. 

"I have felt it myself. The glitter of nuclear weapons. It is irresistible
if you come to them as a scientist. To feel it's there in your hands--to
release the energy that fuels the stars. To let it do your bidding. To
perform these miracles--to lift a million tons of rock into the sky. It is
something that gives people an illusion of illimitable power and it is, in
some ways, responsible for all our troubles, I would say--this what you
might call technical arrogance that overcomes people when they see what they
can do with their minds.1 "

Hmmm...does this not smell like Gnostic rot?  

And it gets worse. Just prior to detonating the first atomic bomb there was
fierce speculation and debate about the possibility of the explosion causing
a chain reaction in the atmosphere that would have obliterated the entire
world. But did they stop their "experiment?"  Nope. Hardly. Filled with
Gnostic-lust, the experiment went on as scheduled. The thirst for "knowing"
and "controlling" was so overwhelming that they were willing to risk total
self-annihilation. 

Am I "bewildered" by Gnosticism, Nikki?  No. Not bewildered. Terrified is
more like it. And, I am therefore zealously anti-Gnostic. Just as Percy was.
He saw, better than any writer I know, precisely how toxic the Gnostic air
has been for us and what the consequences have been. Not the slightest
courtesy here. No apologies. 

Yet, Percy's respectful and gentle nature toward people is hardly surprising
(Thank you, Karey, for providing anecdotal evidence). It was
wrong-mindedness, not people, he berated with irony. In fact, you might say
that his ferocity toward Gnosticism was so "mean-tempered" precisely because
he loved humanity so much. 

Similarly, Nikki, if you find these remarks hurtful in any way, know that
they are not directed toward you personally, but toward your Theosophical
Gnostic ideology. I find it, not you, hideous. Unity in the Cosmos cannot be
achieved through our own efforts to know things -who could look back on the
twentieth century and think otherwise?-- but only through submission to the
order that is revealed to us. 

Also, one last thing, in C.S. Lewis' Abolition of Man, he outlines very
clearly how our struggle to master the world has only resulted in the loss
of the very things that make us human.  In the most monstrously ironic way,
the Gnostic drive for mastery over self and nature is the very thing that is
giving nature a mastery over us -though we haven't yet blown ourselves up,
we might be slowly losing those very human attributes that keep us from
doing it. (BTW: I think this fits in somewhere in the discussion about
animals and language, for part of that discussion seems to work in the
direction of denying the uniqueness of humanity, but I'm short on time today
to flesh that out). 

Steve 




 -----Original Message-----
From:   James Piat [mailto:piat1 AT bellsouth.net] 
Sent:   Thursday, January 02, 2003 11:05 AM
To:     percy-l AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject:        Re: [percy-l] "I don't pay much attention to the right or
the left. . ."

Wade Riddick wrote:
>  If you look at any given academic journal - especially in an area
> like literary studies - "researchers" are largely asking themselves the
> questions and answering the questions for themselves.  I think you get
> closer to "the truth" when you watch the idiotic freshmen ask their
> professors innocent questions - at least until they're properly
> intimidated.

Dear Wade, Folks-

With Brian I enjoyed your comments.  You've got me wondering though just
what role literary studies and literature in general play in getting at the
"truth".   For example, how does literature get at truth in a way that
physics or scientific approaches do  not.  Is the difference primarily one
of approach, the nature of the truth sought  --or what?
Especially I'm wondering about Percy's views on the distinction between the
scientific and the literary.  Seems to me he held there some truth or
reality accessible to literature and the word in general which is simply not
accessible to science  --and that it is mistaken to hold the two approaches
the same standards or assume they are interchangeable.   Would such a view
imply two different definitions of truth  --or is the "fault"  primarily in
the approaches.    Trying to think about such questions I find myself
quickly becoming confused by the relationship between content and method (as
well as subjective and objective) and I look forward to what other think.
Cheers,
Jim Piat

--

An archive of all list discussion is available at
http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail
Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy