Is it OK to be a Luddite?

[MalignD at aol.com]

I don't intend to debate this endlessly, but a few comments to a few 
responses.

>From Richard Romeo:  

<>

What you suppose is not what he wrote.  And it is the "more important than" 
with which I argue.  And yes it is his opinion, and a peculiar and 
unqualified one. If all he's going to do is offer it and move on, then I feel 
justified in criticizing the quality of the essay. 

Most of your other comments, by the way, were rendered all but unreadable by 
HTML code in the note I received.  Sorry.

To Courtney Givens:

I think it is you who are misreading Pynchon's opening paragraphs, re 
specialization (although, I find them largely incoherent, so who knows, 
finally).  He does write "suspect" and "'may still try' to hide behind" the 
jargon of a specialty, but I think that specialized jargon is rewarded less 
often with suspicion than with tenured positions at prestigious universities 
and spots on MacNeil/Lehrer.

<<Clearly P means [by cranky] querulous, ill-tempered, factious.>>

Fine.

>From Otto:

<<You do misunderstand. The coherence is that with the two-worlds distinction 
"nobody could get away" nowadays because of the many "worlds" that have 
occured.>>

I stand by what I wrote. The many worlds aren't out of the obliteration of 
the original two; rather, the proliferation of subspecies of each.  He also 
writes:  "Anybody with the time ... can get together ..." etc. then writes, 
"the problem has really become how to find the time ..." etc.   So what is 
technically possible is practically very difficult.  Not much of a point.  In 
any case, I don't think Google and a library card are going to help the 
generalist master, say, mathematical topology.    

<< This is your list -- none of those names can be found in the essay.>>

This is true.  It's part of what I meant by "dubious and unqualified 
assertions."

<< Maybe you should read a little SF, for example the recently mentioned 
Frank Herbert or the Strugatzkis, to get the idea. I could name several great 
SF-authors I consider far more important than Th. Mann.>>

Maybe I have read a little SF.  If you prefer Frank Herbert to Thomas Mann, 
that's nice for you.

Re Eisenhower:  << Actually Pynchon says: "although Ike didn't put it quite 
that way" [there is a "permanent power establishment of admirals, generals 
and corporate CEOs"].

He very nearly did put it quite that way.  He said, famously, "beware the 
military/industrial complex."

<<This is the crucial point which puts the United States in one line with the 
nazis, and this makes this essay "disturbing" for Americans I believe.>>

That is the point, or would be, were it made, rather than insinuated.  I 
won't try to persuade you that I find it disturbing not because I'm an 
American.

<< In 1984 there was no Colin Powell ...>>  

Tell that to his wife.

<< In referring to Auschwitz Pynchon doesn't mean "systematic racial 
slaughter">>

You know this how?

 <<... but he's talking about slaughter on an industrial scale. Where do you 
see  the words "race" or "Jews"?>>

When the word "holocaust" is used in the same paragraph with "Auschwitz," I 
think the inference is justified. 

<<In the "Slow Learner"-intro (in the same year as the essay in question) he 
says: "(...) that succession of the criminal insane who have enjoyed power 
since 1945," -- this is how many people feel about the world's governments in 
general.>>

That may be.  That doesn't keep it from being rhetorical hyperbole.

<<"Luddism" may be uncommon, but the word "Maschinenstürmer" is common 
German.>>

As is the word "sombrero" in Spanish.  What's your point?