GRGR (15): Good & Evil (was Enzian...)

[Terrance F. Flaherty]

David Morris wrote:
> 
> >From: "Terrance F. Flaherty"
> >
> >David Morris wrote:
> > >
> > > I say:
> > > "Good" and "Evil" here discussed are too flimsy.  Is not context needed?
> > > Can we proscribe w/o context a set of "Good" and "Evil" acts?

Can we? Some can make this argument quite convincingly.
Others, can make the argument
that good and evil can not be divorced from specific acts.
There is a huge spectrum in between. Jefferey S. Baker in
his "Amerikka Uber Alles: German Nationalism, American
Imperialism, and the 1960s Antiwar Movement in Gravity's
Rainbow," 'Critique' Summer 1999, Vol.40, NO.4 323-341 makes
a strong argument, for reading GR with a nod to the the
philosophies that influenced the active politics of the 60s,
--Dewey, C. Wright Mills, William James, and Emerson, he
does not demonstrate that Pynchon had any knowledge of the
political writings of these men, but his argument is very
solid and convincing when he provides textual support and
historical facts. Reading Pynchon as adopting a pragmatist's
perspective of good and evil is problematic for several
reasons I won't get into now, since I'm not sure if this is
what you are suggesting when you ask if we can discuss good
and evil without context. Not all "pragmatists" and Baker
notes some of the differences, would argue that specific
acts are what need to be considered to make a determination,
some, like Dewey, allow for categories. I thought you meant
GR context so I provided some examples, Dora, Herero
genocide, Blicero, both as the embodiment of evil and
perpetrator of evil, linking this to the the dehumanizing,
denaturing evil cartels, and examples of good, Roger's Love
and another example of evil, Pointy's control and
destruction of Love. I also provided the antithesis of this
metaphysical pornography, what God only knows, the mystery
of Pirate's bananas. 


> >"Perception,"
> > > above, is denigrated, 'cause "Some of my best friends are Black," right?
> > > Wrong perception is only balanced with more information.  "Good" and
> >"Evil"
> > > are moving targets, along with "Justice."

OK, I don't have a problem with this. We needn't go too far
down the road of moral philosophy here. I can be a
pragmatist here and not insist on "the good" or "the Evil,"
and consider the context to make these determinations, since
neither approach allows for moral ambiguity or relativism. 

> > >
> > > I love Brecht's "The Good Woman of Sezchuan (sp?)"  A simple but deep
> > > morality play.  Was the Good Woman's Uncle "Evil?"
> > >
> > > David Morris
> > >
> >
> >But in GR we have Blicero, isn't he evil? Not evil in the
> >white hat black hat of a Pynchon's Progress. But Gottfied is
> >going to be put in The Rocket 00000, encased in Imipolex
> >G--a mystery plastic that in GR, consistently represents the
> >apotheosis of a perverse chemical synthesizing that is not
> >only unnatural but antinatural and is unequivocally and
> >inextricably associated with the unhuman, antihuman, indeed
> >dehumanizing of Humans denying their place as integral
> >members of Nature. Gottfried, a human person, if he has a
> >soul or spirit or whatever, he is a human person reduced to
> >less than the mysterious plastic, as he is at that moment
> >only part of the "Subimipolexity."
> 
> Slow down Speed Racer!

It's getting more and more difficult to avoid discussing
later chapters here. If we are going to deal with good and
evil, Bliecero and the like, I think we will be hard pressed
not to post spoilers. 


> 
> >Isn't it evil to Control
> >metaphysics and deny a human person their humanity?
> 
> This question is full of the guilt Wiessman craves...  Let's back up:

Yes, of course it is. 

> 
> Q1.  Is Weissman Evil?
> A1.  Was he evil when he met Enzian way back when?  Was he only preying on
> the young black child?

Only Preying on a black child? Are you serious? 
> 
> Q2.  What happened, changed, Weissman?  Is he only another son bound by his
> ancestry?  Was his initial innocence/purity only a genetic shell to be
> discarded upon crysalilsis?

Why is this important? Is there someone else responsible for
his actions?



> A2.  Was he "Evil" way back then?

Again, why does this matter? 
> 
> Q3.  Aren't there any Libertians out there who think its OK for consenting
> adults to shoot each other out in Rockets?
> A3.  I disclaim adulthood when it comes to Rocketry.

OK.

> 
> David Morris
> 
> All those other questions will have to wait...

OK