AtD p. 868 "we must fall back on probabilites'

[Ian Livingston]

I think it is appropriate to acknowledge the space for uncertainty in Pynchon.  I think anyone who is certain they have TRP figured out is in for a few surprises as their vision widens.  Skepticism is a healthy characteristic in right proportion and its right place, but to attach to skepticism about the power of a falling rock to hurt your head is just plain silly.  Rock and head both certainly exist.  That is one of the commonly mistaken elements of Buddhist philosophy.  Folks think interdependent origination means that what you don't know doesn't exist.  Well, from a purely subjective perspective, that can be argued as true, but the argument is invalidated by the fact that it applies subjective measures to objective phenomena.  It doesn't matter so much whether you are subjectively aware of something for it to exist, what matters is that something, somewhere shares an intersubjective consensus regarding the interobjective proximity of the object in
 question.  Actually everything is a mass of unthinkably complex interobjective and intersubjective relationships.  Everything that exists exists in preexistent complexity.  One wise guy says it's not that I make everything complex, it just is that way and I see it as it is.  I somehow think TRP would agree with that.  Things have their origination outside our enormous egos.  If we must doubt something, we can safely doubt our capacity for certainty or even for appropriate skepticism.  Then be certain of our inability and continue on with the awareness of our common flaw and allow the same uncertainties to those who seem overly sure.  Both Buddhist philosophy and Post-modernist philosophy fall into ridiculous word games about this favorite topic in idealism.  Throw a rock at idealist and see if he ducks.  Better yet, throw a spitwad at the back of his head and see if it stops there or if it disappears when it reaches his denial.


----- Original Message ----
From: Mark Kohut <markekohut at yahoo.com>
To: Paul Mackin <paul.mackin at verizon.net>
Cc: pynchon -l <pynchon-l at waste.org>
Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 3:55:03 PM
Subject: Re: AtD p. 868 "we must fall back on probabilites'


Paul,
 
I think in Pynchon's vision here, human, 'ancient tradition' certainties are what are 
GONE in the world Cyprian has been brought into.....the world of spies, lies, betrayals,
(almost ) everyone able to be bought....."matter of probabilities".
 
I think it is all "practical' metaphors---practical out of praxis--- by TRP about the modern age, not theoretical, not metaphysical in an abstract way, ....
 
I quoted Wittgenstein (re a possible similar idea that P might be using) 'cause Witt argues what you do:   I know no matter WHAT.........do,did, post or pre-structuralist, before modernism or postmodernly, KNOW.....................................
 
A-and we know TRP has read at least some LW. Check out "On Certainty" online and see how LW does to stupid DOUBT or NO TRUTH what you argue---- only years before structuralism and postwhatever............if interested.
 
Here's a, perhaps, relevant section: 
55. So is the hypothesis possible, that all the things around us don't exist? Would that not be like the hypothesis of our having miscalculated in all our calculations?
56. When one says: "Perhaps this planet doesn't exist and the light-phenomenon arises in some other way", then after all one needs an example of an object which does exist. This doesn't exist, - as for example does...
Or are we to say that certainty is merely a constructed point to which some things approximate more, some less closely? No. Doubt gradually loses its sense.
 
MK
 
If interested
 


Paul Mackin <paul.mackin at verizon.net> wrote:
Mark Kohut wrote:
> Further; in such a modern world, relying on 'probabilites' is to say 
> all certainties
> are GONE..................................................

What about Death and Taxes and that the sun will rise tomorrow?

Oh yes in some theoretical sense there are no certainties, but does that 
have any practical meaning?

If before I knew there were no certainties I knew I didn't like spinach, 
finding out different doesn't soften my opinion any.

It's like the idea that there is no absolute Truth.

Studying postmodernist thought or post-structuralism does change 
anyone's beliefs about anything--except of course he now knows there is 
no Truth.

:-)







> 
> See On Certainty, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Grounds for /doubt/ are 
> lacking! Everything speaks in its favour, nothing against it.
> 
> "All that is solid melts into air"....marx
>
> */Mark Kohut /* wrote:
>
> in the modern world here, "no loyalties, no code of honor, no
> ancient tradition"----Pynchonian ideals----exist anymore. Everyone
> can be bought?
> 
> "We must fall back on probabilities".......
> 
> Cf. roulette, gambling, chance themes..
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.
> Try it now.
> 
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try 
> it now. 
> 





________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and 
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.


      __________________________________________________________________
Get a sneak peak at messages with a handy reading pane with All new Yahoo! Mail: http://ca.promos.yahoo.com/newmail/overview2/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20080425/c7f62114/attachment-0001.html>