Notes From Underglass- Why Pynchon Matters

[vze422fs at verizon.net]

on 2/23/03 6:37 PM, prozak at anus.com at prozak at anus.com wrote:

> 
>>>>>> What makes Pynchon important as a novelist is precisely because of his
>>>>>> sense of political and ethical responsibility which balances and informs
>>>>>> his aesthetics, something Riefenstahl, for example, failed to accomplish.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I prefer to be open-minded about the political beliefs of others. In
>>>>> her view, she did the same.
>>>> 
>>>> I prefer not to be open-minded about the wholesale slaughter of people.
>>> 
>>> You're already taking a complex series of events and attempting to
>>> distill it to a linear, moral point of view.
>>> 
>>> To an external observer, this is no different than what Hitler did or
>>> Bush is doing.
>>> 
>>>> What you call open-minded, others might call "fellow traveller",
>>>> collaborationist, apologist, or card carrying member.
>>> 
>>> Not if they want to be taken credibly, since by my original words
>>> you've quoted above, my "open-mindedness" applies equally to the
>>> political beliefs of all people.
>>> 
>> I guess I'm not open-minded then.
> 
> You're right. Not only that, but you've contradicted being part of
> any philosophy that prides itself on that open-mindedness.
> 
>> I can neither accept nor condone political
>> beliefs that embrace hatred, racism, disregard for human life, and the
>> slaughter of innocents. I cannot separate politics from morality. And yes,
>> because I see the world ultimately through my own eyes, I am imposing my
>> moral code on everyone else. So are you. So is everyone else. That's the
>> politics of experience.
> 
> I'm not imposing any moral code on others: I'm merely asking them
> about their own, and pointing out where it is inconsistent.
> 
> I think Pynchon was hinting along these lines as well.
> 
>> She made the morally wrong one.
> 
> Please post the formula for determining morally right choices from
> morally wrong ones.

No formula for that one, though some pretty smart guys have tried.

It's still something you kind of have to feel out for yourself. I think it
helps to think about the context and foreseeable repercussions of action
before making a decision. For instance: "Do I really want to set off an
incendiary device in a small crowded room just because it might be
entertaining?" or "Should I make a deal with Satan in order to further my
career?". Things like random stupidity must also be taken in to account. "Is
it possible that there might be something here that I don't understand that
might result in my being a complete idiot or inadvertantly a rampant
asshole?" You can try to put some sort of sliding scale on this, but it's
still difficult to quantify. So, I like to ask myself these questions.

Does this make me a relatavist?

Bringing it all back home : SL p113. Porpentine, who is willing to kill to
further the interests of his national employers, is appalled by
Bongo-Shaftsbury's behavior.

>"One does not frighten a child a child, sir."
>"General principles. Damn you."


>> Just because I can understand the precipitating circumstances that could
>> lead someone or an entire nation to follow a Hitler or Saloth Sar, that does
>> not mean that I shrug my shoulders and say "Hey, that's their opinion. I'm
>> open-minded".
> 
> I'm a relativist :)


Hang loose, Proz.
Take that shiny black horse of yours for a romp around the apocalyptic
paddock.

Joe