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

[Terrance F. Flaherty]

rj wrote:
> 
> peter petto:
> > I get the impression from rjackson's comments and the discussion that
> > followed that the misbehavior of the liberated Dora prisoners compromises
> > the strong moral message of GR.
> >
> > I don't really understand why. In the arena of dog psychology: if I beat a
> > dog daily and after several years liberated him, I wouldn't expect him to
> > be kind or friendly to you.
> 
> The dog's retaliation against the dog beater may be just deserts. And,
> indeed, this dog's rampage against humans would quite likely be
> indiscriminate, and understandably so; the psychology of the dog has
> been affected (conditioned). But, if this dog were to attack your
> innocent child then would you be so quick to endorse the dog's
> reactions?
> 
> Whatever the point here, the canine species is not compelled by
> intuitive(?)/conditioned morality, nor by fear of reprisal from the
> systems of justice based on such morality. The human species is.
> 
> I think "misbehaviour" is an euphemism. In the scene where Slothrop
> burns the doll's hair, who else could have been responsible for the
> total destruction of this little girl's life, which is quite graphically
> depicted? The "rampage" of the Dora prisoners figures in this section
> prominently, opens it in fact imo, is recalled three times, and precedes
> Pokler's story.
> 
> That there are many "strong moral messages" in *GR* I guess is the
> point, these often in absolute conflict with one another, each one
> dependent on local context and individual perspective for its particular
> "truth". There isn't a vantage beyond the text which can accommodate
> their complexity as a unity, because individual human perception is
> limited and preconditioned (this is a major theme of the novel in fact),
> and this applies to readers and authors as well as to fictional
> characters and historical personages. I perceive this to be a type of
> moral relativism operating within the text: neither nihilism on the
> reader's part or an inference of Pynchonian moral ambivalence are
> constituted in this statement.
> 
> best




"That there are many "strong moral messages" in *GR* I guess
is the
point, these often in absolute conflict with one another,
each one
dependent on local context and individual perspective for
its particular
"truth". 

The moral messages are often in conflict, but how are they
dependent on local context and individual perspective for a
particular truth? 

For example, the abuse of the African's by the white
colonialists (though black in humor and twisted in ironies),
depicts a moral truth, accepted and agreed upon by all.
There is no room for moral ambiguities here. What the whites
do to the Africans can not be justified. If we deal with
this example, say with David M's fine suggestion that we
apply moral judgments to specific context (pragmatism or
neo-pragmatism), it is clear that the actions of the white
colonialists are evil. Introducing other examples only
defeats the pragmatic approach. 



There isn't a vantage beyond the text which can accommodate
> their complexity as a unity, because individual human perception is
> limited and preconditioned (this is a major theme of the novel in fact),
> and this applies to readers and authors as well as to fictional
> characters and historical personages.

Where do you get this from? This would be a very profound
statement if it is true and can be supported by the text.
Does Pynchon or GR carry this major theme--that individual
perceptions are limited and preconditioned? Does the novel
or Pynchon somehow confirm that this applies to the reader?