A tiny question.

[Paul Mackin]

On Tue, 2 Jan 1996, Hartwin Alfred Gebhardt wrote:
> 
> I have to disagree. He is clearly attempting to connect the first law 
> of thermodynamics with "our" continued spiritual existence. He is 
> thus implying something like 'energy = soul', and is therefore quite 
> explicitly misusing the clearly defined concept of energy - if you 
> take the scientific definition away from E, you take the meaning away. 
> Furthermore, vBraun is using the authority of science in order to 
> propagate some non-scientific opinion. You may think this not serious, 
> or merely poetic license, but it is more than that. There are many ways 
> to use science in order to create interesting and _successful_ metaphors 
> without making nonsense of the science in the process - this is not one 
> of them.

In my opinion, science is not a sacred cow. If you want to make nonsense
of it for literary purposes, that's perfectly OK. Pynchon does it
magnificiently.

I happen to agree with hg that v B's statement (if he ever made it) 
leaves a lot to be desired.

However, it was brilliant as an opener for GR.

If I missconstrued hg's words as my takeoff point, I apologize.

Now, how dare anyone say Pynchon makes nonsense of science?

					P.