Why translation is a problem for lit's but not scientists

[Mutualcode at aol.com]

For the same reason that scientists prefer Macs. If everyone 
just used a Mac, there would be no "two cultures" problem.
Communication would flourish and the age of Aquarius would
dawn. What you see is what you get:

         I am firmly of the opinion that the Macintosh is Catholic 
       and that DOS is Protestant. Indeed, the Macintosh is 
       counter-reformist and has been influenced by the 'ratio 
       studiorum' of the Jesuits. It is cheerful, friendly, conciliatory, 
       it tells the faithful how they must proceed step by step to 
       reach--if not the Kingdom of Heaven--the moment in which 
       their document is printed. It is catechistic: the essence of 
       revelation is dealt with via simple formulae and sumptuous 
       icons. Everyone has a right to salvation.

    http://davenet.userland.com/1994/11/13/umbertoecoonpcsmacs

It is the literary types that have gone over to the darkside and
worshipped at the temple of Gates:

       DOS is Protestant, or even Calvinistic. It allows free 
       interpretation of scripture, demands difficult personal 
       decisions, imposes a subtle hermeneutics upon the 
       user, and takes for granted the idea that not all can 
       reach salvation. To make the system work you need 
       to interpret the program yourself: a long way from the 
       baroque community of revellers, the user is closed 
       within the loneliness of his own inner torment. 

Personally, I think Gates, with the introduction of "Windows," was
more like Paul, and IBM like the Roman Empire; while the mac
os was actually the enriching gnostic counterculture against
which Paul/Gates spun his orthodoxy. Grammer is discretionary
in the mac world, because "what" is expressed is always allowed
to determine the form. Plato is only a halfway station, only as good
as the next approximation, determined by contingent reality, which,
according to Heisenberg and Gödel, can never be finally pinned 
down. Aristotle always wins: method over madness and death.

I agree with Eco, however, about the machine code which provides the
interface between human volition and inanimate consistency:

       "And machine code, which lies beneath both systems 
       (or environments, if you prefer)? Ah, that is to do with the 
       Old Testament, and is talmudic and cabalistic..."

The Scientific Method might be the new universal catechism.

respectfully




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20030416/c1251b23/attachment.html>