references to binary opposition in Pynchon's novels

[Paul Mackin]

On Sat, 2004-11-06 at 22:18, jbor wrote:
> >>>> [...] But in the domain of zero to one, not-something to something,
> >>>> Pointsman can only possess the zero and the one. He cannot, like Mexico,
> >>>> survive anyplace in between . Like his master I. P. Pavlov before him, he
> >>>> imagines the cortex of the brain as a mosaic of tiny on/off elements. Some
> >>>> are always in bright excitation, others darkly inhibited. The contours,
> >>>> bright and dark, keep changing. But each point is allowed only the two
> >>>> states: waking or sleep. One or zero. "Summation," "transition,"
> >>>> "irradiation," "concentration ," "reciprocal induction" -- all Pavlovian
> >>>> brain-mechanics - assumes the presence of these bi-stable points. But to
> >>>> Mexico belongs the domain *between* zero and one -- the middle Pointsman
> >>>> has
> >>>> excluded from his persuasion -- the probabilities. [...] (_GR_, p. 55)
> 
> >> The behaviourist believes that all human reactions conform to the principle
> >> of biological determinism. In the behaviourist paradigm there is no
> >> distinction made between physiological and psychological reactions.
> >
> > Behaviorism as normally understood means that only the outward
> > observable aspects of the psychological are studied. Inner,
> > non-observable processes including consciousness are not dealt with.
> 
> This is inaccurate.

Actually, it's quite accurate enough for purposes of correcting your
misrepresentation of what behaviorism means in the context of
experimental science. I didn't have time to write a treatise. 
> 
> E.g. "The real question is not whether machines think but whether men do."
>                                                 (B.F. Skinner)

Is this supposed to relevant to what we are talking about?

> 
> >> Mexico is still a scientist. But Pointsman realises that framing the
> >> stimulus-response relationship in terms of probabilities, as Rog does,
> >> rather than as certainties, poses a direct threat to the behaviourist
> >> paradigm. There's no muddle about it.
> 
> ***
> 
> >> In the behaviourist paradigm there is no
> >> distinction made between physiological and psychological reactions.
> > 
> > Meaningless distinction really and who would bother to say otherwise.
> 
> Most people, actually. Hardly anyone still believes, as the behaviourists
> did, that muscular reflexes and conscious behaviour are the same.

The distinction you made, which you now rephrase, was and remains
meaningless with regard to my questioning of Pynchon's planting in
Pointsman's head such a gross confusion about the level of organization
at which pavlovian and/or behaviorist research is conducted. Remember
all that babbling about zero/one Pointsman was doing. You would agree
wouldn't you that such "all or nothing" behavior only occurs at the
cellular level. You will also agree that behaviorists and pavlovians
don't observe and collect data at the cellular level. Pointsman was made
to appear a greater booby than I think Pynchon intended. Maybe I'm wrong
but I doubt it.

 


> 
> E.g. "As soon as questions of will or decision or reason or choice of action
> arise, human science is at a loss." (Chomsky)

Are you talking to me or some other p-lister? 
> 
> ***
> 
> By the way, this is where the muddle is:
> 
> >>> Some subjects may respond in one way, some may exhibit
> >>> seemingly opposite behavior, some may fall between the "extremes," and
> >>> some animals may not respond at all. The one/zero responses of the
> >>> individual cells are of course still going on in the animal subjects,
> >>> but for purposes of writing up the experiment and drawing conclusions
> >>> the zero/one business is meaningless.

No muddle at all. It describes (rather verbosely I'll admit) how in
animal experiments you can get quite divergent responses from a given
stimulus. Don't tell me you are going to disagree with that also. And
this is notwithstanding the fact that cellular behavior is all or
nothing--one or zero expressed numerically.

Think of the fact that on a digital computer you can store all variety
of information, yet at the level of the bit you can only store zero or
one. 

Really, Robert, nothing you have said has any bearing at all on the post
I wrote. Maybe it's not supposed to. Maybe you are making some kind of
demonstration of Otto's humorous (I think) dictum. Can't remember
exactly how he phrased it. Don't make sense! was it? However,  I know
you are not that kind of postmodernist thinker. I'm right, aren't I?
Just this once.


> 
> best
>