animals in M&D

[Terrance F. Flaherty]

Spencer Thiel wrote:
> 
> At 3:14 PM -0400 9/3/99, you wrote:
> 
> >Are the LED and the Duck examples of conditioning? Where do
> >you find support for this in M&D?
> 
> First, I think that the name LED carries some meaning w/r/t
> conditioning (either on or off).
> 
> I'm not able to pull anything out of the text, nor do I think it is
> necessary in this instance.  Pynch's books are filled with animals
> doing strange things.  Grigori, Fang, the Duck, etc.  The
> non-fictional history of animals displaying abnormal behavior is
> almost always attributed to conditioning. Clever Hans is just one
> example (also, check Paul DiFillipo's example here
> <http://waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l&month=9711&msg=621&sort=thread>
> ).  It seems that if animals display abnormal behavior, humans refuse
> to give the animal credit for having innate intelligence (possibly
> stemming from literal biblical interpretations).  If I remember, the
> LED claims that he is the logical progression of the dog, since the
> reason that dogs came into existence was that they learned to act
> like humans so as not to be eaten by humans (conditioning? I think
> so).

Yes a LOGICAl progression, evolutionary progression, not
conditioning, not like the birds that watch TV or the
Pavlovian dogs, right? These comments by out LED, follow
Mason's question concerning the SOUL and the KOAN
puzzle--satire--same problem Profane raises with SHOCK. So,
the LED is not subversive of Pavlovian conditioning or
Psychology at all, he is rather a satire of MAN in the age
of Reason: "Tis the Age of Reason,rrrf? There is ever an
explanation at hand, and no such thing as a talking
dog,--Talking Dogs belong with Dragons and Unicorns. What
there are, (and I think this may be Richard Romeo's point
about MARGINS) however, are provisions for Survival in a
world less fantastical." Dragons, Unicorns, talking dogs and
Houyhnhnms.


> 
> This is just one view of the role of the animals of MD and not
> mutually exclusive of any of the other interpretations.  Can't they
> all be correct?  This is the encyclopedic Pynch, after all.
> 
> -
> st.
> -
Right this is encyclopedic an Pynchon often mixes or 
crosses his purposes, So the Rats in V. are indoctrinated
(conditioned?) but they represent
history/philosophy/religion and are traditional figures of
satire. 

TF