Pynchon and fascism

[Terrance]

> For the record, I think several people have participated in an
> interesting and worthwhile discussion over the last week or so. That
> includes you, jbor. I'm sorry you couldn't keep it going.

As Bob Dylan says, you can't make love all by yourself. 


But why did you return to the "fascist" paragraph"? 

Perhaps you were attracted to something logistical after all. 

The Logistical method proceeds from whole to parts or  a determination
of the whole by the parts. 


The validity of your argument was not determined by success or failure.
As you discovered (as you advised us "to remind the reader...")  invalid
arguments may be persuasive. 


Why did you get trapped in the "fascist" conclusion that follows from
premises. 


Your approach was not dialectic--dtermination of parts by the whole.  

It was not Sophistic (whatever works for me works and I can't be
bothered with all this lit-crit bull shit. An approach that work because
by  conflict or fiction-friction (although, understandably, you had a
difficult time with this). 




Your analytical method, is analysis in the sense of INQUIRY. Inquiry,
solves problems. 
You implied that We had a big problem here on Pynchon-L and you thought
that your approach would solve it. It did not. But it worked. 

If it is dropped, it's because you drop it. The rest of us can't make
that argument. 





The fundamental order of a subject matter, an order that is discovered
by inquiry and exhibited or demonstrated in the "science" of that
subject matter, need not coincide with the order of inquiry by which it
happened to be discovered. That is, the order of inquiry is one thing,
the order discovered by inquiry another, and it is the latter which is
fundamentally what we are after.