<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div>OK, Kai, since nobody else has ( yet) I will plunge in.</div><div><br></div><div>Mathematician==theoretic; abstract, Platonic ( so to speak).....With Positive Eastern Spirituality overtones....</div><div>He is also a Thanatoid...??....doesn't Pynchon characterize as full of revenge ( in some way?) </div><div>Fill in your other meanings to Thanatoid.</div><div>Self-surprised Campus revolutionary leader....(some unwanted charisma?) ....</div><div>Betrayed by Frenesi..........</div><div><br></div><div>Math is betrayed in Vineland and Yashmeen gives it up in Against the Day. </div><div>Why?</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br><br>Sent from my iPad</div><div><br>On Jun 17, 2013, at 6:12 AM, Kai Frederik Lorentzen <<a href="mailto:lorentzen@hotmail.de">lorentzen@hotmail.de</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><di
v>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
> ... the nature of Humanity. Science is its subset.<br>
<br>
Well, your word "science" could be replaced by nearly any other
word. Try 'law', 'politics', 'family', 'art', 'sport', 'economy',
or 'education'. Claiming "the nature of (h)umanity" is seldom
wrong but hardly ever helpful. As Joseph says: The debate is about
the socio-historical evolution of concrete social systems (or
'forms', or 'figurations', or 'spheres'), here science. It's not
about the human hardware. <br>
<br>
My suggestion to people who feel the need to defend science on
this list:<br>
<br>
Show where Pynchon speaks in favor of science! <br>
<br>
Question: Why is <i>Vineland</i>'s Weed Atman a mathematician?<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://kasmana.people.cofc.edu/MATHFICT/mfview.php?callnumber=mf591">http://kasmana.people.cofc.edu/MATHFICT/mfview.php?callnumber=mf591</a>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 17.06.2013 05:09, David Morris wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:CANvF+wjKzXeogjgUWVdJXzF395tmyhAw34zV-hJW+geW1b2T0A@mail.gmail.com" type="cite">Your argument is with the nature of Humanity. Science
is its subset.
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Solve that, I dare you.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote cite="mid:CANvF+wjKzXeogjgUWVdJXzF395tmyhAw34zV-hJW+geW1b2T0A@mail.gmail.com" type="cite">
<div><br>
<br>
On Sunday, June 16, 2013, Joseph Tracy wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> <br>
The conversation is too polarized. I have the sense that what
I am actually saying is being turned into something far more
extreme than it really is. I don't think there is any evidence
Kai, myself or even the more extreme aw posts are promoting a
disdain for science, and I'm fairly sure we all see that
science is a process with many benefits and great potential
for the human endeavor. But its evolution has yielded enormous
power, and in some ways that power is so dangerous as to
potentially nullify its benefits and even life itself. That
is a power that has to be reckoned with. Humans have not
evolved ethically at the same rate as science and that is a
discord that is a global problem. Science has become a
godlike force and we are still territorial primates with an
inclination to link our territories to beliefs. Unfortunately,
what this means is that science has become something of a
modern religion and critical discussion is not a dispassionate
process.<br>
<br>
The critique I am trying to put forth is about the ways,
psychological, social and technological science is
historically and currenty linked to the destructive abuse of
power. This is no more indicting all science or all scientists
than it would be to indict all teaching or all teachers for
all the bad stuff that gets taught and what happens as a
result, or indicting all written and graphic communication
systems for its inherent distortions of reality, broken
treaties, the dishonest accumulation of wealth. My intent is
a matter of thinking about all these things in such a way as
to know the potential dangers of how we do all these things
and be better able to avoid those dangers.<br>
<br>
JZ. Comparing anyone on the list with the
rightwing-xenophobic-fundamentalist-fascist Michelle Bachman
is not what I would call an astute or credible observation.
Instead of calling people anti-science, maybe it would be more
respectful to engage on the level of responding to the actual
words and ideas. How, for example have the descriptions of
science on the list been inaccurate?<br>
<br>
What alice wellintown is saying about science seems to me to
be about showing the inherent psychological appeal of getting
new knowledge and extending one's power, that it is not
inherently benign, and has a dark side. The issue is that
science is a human activity.<br>
<br>
Perhaps something about the role of science in my own life and
family. I like science and talked about it with my adopted
step daughter and 2 birth children often while they were still
home. I don't think any of them would say I maligned science.
My oldest daughter has become a director of science
curriculum at a large school district, my son, the youngest,
is working for a silicon valley entrepreneur on a prototype
of an electric work truck, collaborating with Siemens and
using Darpa developed batteries . My other daughter just
graduated from Smith with a degree in environmental policy. I
continue to try to master the practical science of food
gardening and working with glass as an artistic medium.
Recently, along with literature, news and commentary I have
been inclined to read about permaculture, mushrooms, soil
science, global climate change, environmental issues, and the
science of hot glass. I teach art glass every year and talk
about surface tension, the random molecular structure of the
glass as opposed to the crystalline structure of most
minerals, the coefficient of expansion as a factor in the
compatibility of fusible glass, the practical use of geometry
in design for architectonic ornament and other things that
boil down to the science that is helpful to know for joining
art and glass.<br>
<br>
<br>
On Jun 15, 2013, at 9:40 PM, Joseph S. Barrera III wrote:<br>
<br>
> As a fellow scientist I don't get the anti-science rants
either. I'd recommend recognizing that half the anti-science
content comes from one poster. But even so I've come close to
dropping this list because of that poster.<br>
><br>
> - Joe<br>
><br>
> P.S. U. Pitt! I am a CMU grad but from long ago (1990).<br>
><br>
> On 6/15/2013 9:03 AM, JZ Stafura wrote:<br>
>> Hi all,<br>
>><br>
>> Been a lurker on this list for a long time, haven't
felt like I've had the time to contribute to the list, given
the fine minds here. While I've enjoyed the discussions,
debates, and thoughts for years now, the latest anti-science
talk sounds more like a Michelle Bachman speech than the
intelligence I'm used to on this list. As a junior scientist
(who just must be bought and sold by the powers that be -
those evil folks who want to find ways to help children with
language impairments through non-pharmacological instructional
techniques - gasp!), the level of discourse on science here
has been depressing, small-minded, and reveals how little my
'kind' are thought of here. Yes, scientists are aware of the
dangers of science, most of them are like me, curious and
amazed at the world around us - and not stupid enough to take
money to study things just because the money is there. It
sounds like everyone on this list has there mind made up, but
what if scientist lumped all literature students in the same
pile (I also have a lit degree) - we could say something like
lit theory has offered nothing new for over 50 years, which is
why the programs are drying up - it isn't the worlds fault,
it's yours. I don't believe this at all, but it is as accurate
a description of humanities as the descriptions of science
have been on this list over the last month or so.<br>
>><br>
>> Take it or leave it, I don't mind, and I'll always
enjoy reading what the brilliant folks on this list have to
say.<br>
>><br>
>> Joe<br>
>><br>
>> Joseph Z. Stafura<br>
>> U. Pitt<br>
>> iPhone (apologies for the brevity and mistakes)<br>
>><br>
>> On Jun 15, 2013, at 11:16 AM, alice wellintown <<a moz-do-not-send="true">alicewellintown@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
>><br>
>>> Look into a Astro-Biology textbook, or into an
Astronomy Webpage, and you will see beautiful artwork.
Artistic simulations of what the data from distant space
probes fed into computers is adding up to. With the space
probe, the computer, we can build entire worlds, above and
beyond the confining fact of nature, and these built worlds
are nothing next to the transformation wrought by science and
technology, which has extended our bodies to manipulate and
change the world to fulfill its very own, often evil and cruel
plans for it and its unwitting inhabitants. Much as
Science/Technic claims to educate and warn, Science and
Technology has shown how to destroy before we understand. In P
we have several unmistakable examples. We have the bombs
dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This, of course, is the
Science/technology destruction that continues, even after we
exit the Theatre/Theater to hover above our heads in equations
we can't understand, but in common sense parlance, it's the
fucking bomb, and Science and Technology is only a hindrance
to our grasping the sphincter-tightening reality.
Science/Technology has altered what is to be a human by giving
the species the capacity to totally denude our Earth with war
that escalates to madness and chaos. Remember WWII? madness.
Chaos. GR is a reminder and a warning. Isn't it? Even if the
anti-bomb folk are now pro-bomb for everyone folk, even Iran
and N Korea have a right to the bomb, no? Even if the MAD men
are now Peace Men who want to prevent proliferation while
maintaining a huge advantage, even if the threat keeps the
peace or whatever...we have been transformed by the bomb.<br>
>>> McCarthy does delve into this, BYW. _The Road_
is set after some kind of holocaust that burns the Earth to a
crisp.<br>
>>> In any event, the Earth, the Planet Earth no
longer seems a home that we can live on forever. Science
played god, and so we poor preterit must accept a home, a
garden that is not eternal, but has an end to it.<br>
>>> The Second Coming of Science-Technic is
Modernity without Restraint.<br>
>>> But don't worry poor fellow,
Science-Technology will make you immortal, ship your frozen
head to a new planet or to a space station. The limitations of
Science and Technology, once we see that it has extended our
capacity to Destroy Earth and holds out space stations and
frozen heads as compensation, are clear enough to a common
thinker who reads and thinks, and who knows it's OK to be a
reader and thinker even if this opens one to accusations of
Luddism.<br>
>>> Science a</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div></blockquote></body></html>