I meant to send this to the list, but that pesky reply vs reply all button
got me again...
----- Original Message -----
From: "Phil Wise" <philwise at paradise.net.nz>
To: "Swing Hammerswing" <hammerswingswing at hotmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2001 8:18 PM
Subject: Re: facts? interpretations?
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Swing Hammerswing" <hammerswingswing at hotmail.com>
> To: <jbor at bigpond.com>; <pynchon-l at waste.org>
> Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2001 6:22 PM
> Subject: Re: facts? interpretations?
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> > >From: "jbor" <jbor at bigpond.com>
> > >To: pynchon-l at waste.org
> > >Subject: Re: facts? interpretations?
> > >Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 10:19:40 +1000
> > >
> > >
> > > Facts are but the Play-things of lawyers,-- Tops and Hoops,
> > > forever a-spin....
> > > (_M&D_ 349)
> >
> > You are citing a character/narrator/ in a Pynchon fiction.
> >
> > So what? Doesn't mean donkey dick unless you comment on
> > it. WC aint TRP!! You and the Doug, no wonder you go at it, at the
> > expense of the list and with the total disreagred for the Pynchon list.
> >
> >
> > Facts are but plaything my ass, this is WC. If Pynchon
> > believed this pomo history he would be the hypocrit of the
> > century.
>
> Would you be able to explain this, since you want people to extrapolate?
I
> mean, since we know squat about TRP's actions in real life, how can you
> claim he'd be saying one thing and doing another? How do we know jbor's
not
> just quoted a nugget of pynchon's belief (bear in mind some of us aren't
up
> to speed with M&D)?
>
> Hey, get Sasuly and read it, maybe you will
> > bet a clue about P's true understanding of America.
>
> Or get Pynchon and read it, and read Sasuly to find out Sasuly's
> understanding...
>
> You
> > think theory is science and america is the land of satan
> > and you try to make Pynchon your dummy, but we aint buying.
>
> I don't believe anyone's espoused those beliefs in this conversation. And
> which we-system you usin' anyway?
>
> I don't know what the answer is, but does Goedel's theorum fit into this
> debate about "truth" somewhere, as it applies to scientific truth?
>
> As for B's essay, it ends up being about the industrialisation of academic
> life, and I'm sure some of the things he says about that are true. B
> actually criticises the way his colleagues work more than the "social
> constructivist" ideas themselves; although he tempers this with sympathy
for
> them because of the pressures they are under. Reading between the lines,
he
> seems to accept that a lot of cultural behaviour is socially constructed
(is
> that and "constructed from" or "cased in" language different?), but would
> like to reserve a place for truths beyond culture, specifically empirical
> science. I guess that's why the stuff on Goedel (sp?) in GR came to mind.
>
> Phil
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > >----------
> > > >From: Doug Millison <millison at online-journalist.com>
> > > >
> > >
> > > > That language is "not instinctive" is far from universally accepted
> > > > as accurate; to the contrary, we seem to be hard-wired for language
> > > > and culture,
> > >
> > >Yes, this is the unstated alternative viewpoint in Bauerlein's article,
> > >that
> > >language is instinctive, somehow miraculously-bestowed on humans at
> birth.
> >
> >
> > BULLSHIT! He never says this. What is unstated
> > is unstated, if you state it and attribute to
> > the essay it's yours not the authors.
> >
> >
> > Give it up, ther is nothing much worth arguing about, that
> > Monroe guy and Mike R said it best, now cut bait.
> >
> >
> > >But if you compare an actual instinct, like suckling or breathing,
which
> > >any
> > >mammalian newborn is able to do immediately, to the way that language &
> > >communication skills develop receptively and then actively through
> manifold
> > >stages, and only after a long period of immersion in an environment
which
> > >is
> > >already language-specific, then it's pretty obvious that they are
> > >qualitatively different phenomena. Who was it that was able to teach
that
> > >chimp to communicate using English language?
> >
> > If you don't know, but sure you do, this is a fake out,
> > you don't know, but either way Man, you have no idea what
> > the hell you are talking about so pleeeeeeeez.
> >
> >
> > >
> > >I'm not sure how "culture" might be instinctive: this proposition seems
> to
> > >ignore the fact that human society is and always has been a culturally
> and
> > >linguistically-diverse place.
> >
> > What is cultture? Give me a simple anthropological definition OK, look
in
> > the archives, there is a very good one in there.
> >
> > You guys, stick to Pynchon.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > > which appear to possess an evolutionary history that
> > > > preceeds our own,
> > >
> > >Are you saying that human language(s) and culture(s) preceded human
> > >history???!
> >
> > Yeah, so what, how is this any different from any of the
> > other stupid srtuff you guys are talking about here?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > > which arise naturally among humans (and other
> > > > animals) and conditioned by our physical make-up-- quite a bit of
> > > > exciting work is underway exploring those areas; an interesting
> > > > starting point is Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and its
> > > > Challenge to Western Thought by George Lakoff and Mark Johnson, plus
> > > > tons of research that's beginning to uncover the physical components
> > > > of emotions and thought.
> > >
> > >Nature vs nurture: there's nothing new in the debate. I agree that
there
> > >must be physiological aspects to thinking and emotion: the way that
some
> > >foods and chemicals are able to produce mind-altering states certainly
> > >supports this thesis. But the fact that different human cultures (and
> > >individuals) value different "emotions" and "thoughts", or prioritise
> them
> > >differently, or even seem to "think" and "feel" differently, seems to
me
> > >self-evident. Pynchon:
> > >
> > > "My god," Saul flung up an arm. "Dehumanized? How much more human
can
> I
> > > get? I worry, Meatball, I do. There are Europeans wandering around
> North
> > > Africa with their tongues torn out of their heads because their
tongues
> > > have spoken the wrong words. Only the Europeans thought they were the
> > >right
> > > words."
> > > "Language barrier", Meatball suggested.
> > > Saul jumped down off the stove. "That", he said, angry, "is a good
> > > candidate for sick joke of the year. No, ace, it is *not* a barrier.
If
> > >it
> > > is anything it is a kind of leakage. Tell a girl: 'I love you'. No
> > >trouble
> > > with two-thirds of that, it's a closed circuit. Just you and she. But
> > >that
> > > nasty four-letter word in the middle, *that's* the one you have to
look
> > >out
> > > for. Ambiguity. Redundance. Irrelevance, even. Leakage. All this is
> > >noise.
> > > Noise screws up your signal, makes for disorganization in the
circuit."
> > > ('Entropy'
1960)
> > >
> > > > Where does Pynchon come down on this question? Hard to say, but
> > > > given his devastating critique of the systems approach, and of
> > > > religious dogma, it's difficult to imagine him applauding a system
of
> > > > thought as limited and dogmatic as social constructionism
> > >
> > >Just chanting over and over again that a widely-held proposition is
> > >"limited
> > >and dogmatic" doesn't actually make it so. But Pynchon certainly
> addresses
> > >the alternative viewpoint in elaborate detail. Throughout _GR_ he
> satirises
> > >the inter-relationship of "shit, money and the Word", Puritan "vanity"
> > >(267.23), and that "Puritan reflex of seeking other orders behind the
> > >visible" (188.14):
> > >
> > > It touches Slothrop's own Puritan hopes for the Word, the Word
made
> > > printer's ink, dwelling along with antibodies and and iron-bound
> > >breath
> > > in a good man's blood ... (571.33)
> > >
> > > > -- the
> > > > world exceeds its grasp quite easily, it founders on self-cancelling
> > > > contradiction ("no facts only interpretation" erases anything like
> > > > certainty for the claim of fundamental truth that its defenders make
> > > > for social constructionism), it fails to capture anything like the
> > > > complex richness of life and thought.
> > >
> > >There's no need to treat Nietzsche's maxim that "there are no facts,
only
> > >interpretations" as a "fundamental truth", particularly as some people,
> > >such
> > >as Bauerlein, appear to interpret things differently. (This, to my
mind,
> is
> > >part of the *proof* of the proposition .... ) But if it helps at all
then
> > >think of it as a scientific hypothesis, just like the observation that
> the
> > >planets orbit the sun. As with the latter, many scientists nowadays
> happen
> > >to agree, to a point where it has become accepted without question in
> their
> > >discourse. Just as academics in this field aren't obliged to
demonstrate
> > >the
> > >proof of planetary solar orbit every time they write a paper (however
> much
> > >the atavists at the Flat Earth Society might protest), neither do
> linguists
> > >or anthropologists need to demonstrate the proof that language, and
thus
> > >knowledge, are social constructs. Surely the onus is on naysayers such
as
> > >Bauerlein & co to provide substantive corroboration of an or the
> > >alternative
> > >viewpoint/s, not just fire off broadsides against straw men?
> > >
> > >best
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > What a bunch of crap, come on, this is what you have learnt
> > in your foucault seminars and it can't be applied to
> > pynchon unless you qualify it as such. It's your
> > theory taken from the run of the mill intro to relativism
> > and applied to GR. What a bunch o9f crap.
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
> >
> >
>