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).
> 
> 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.
> -

I am VERY Sorry Spencer Thiel, I really misunderstood your
meaning here, and after looking at my notes on M&D chapter
66, and reading this chapter over again, I understand your
post better--"literal biblical interpretations," good point.
I still think conditioning is not quite the point here--as
it is in GR, but I'll post a full reply on this difference
as I see it. 

"from watching Humans out here over the Course of several
Winters...Who after all could claim to know Fang's true
Story? Some saying he did it to himself,--others blaming the
Humans who profited from his Strange Abilities.."

TF