IVIV IV & Playboy article

[Mark Kohut]

P's cultural conservatism, yes, has no connection to contemporary Conservatism, none at all, which Christers he loathes......

I'm thinking of such as Eliot's conservatism and an older tradition.

A--and, non-violent anarchism, as an oxmoronic ideology, means protesters, anarchists in action do not initiate violence........not that anyone is a pacifist.................

And, Doc is a character in a genre fiction who is not Pynchon, of course, 
and whose 'divided' moral character we have all been exploring....... 

--- On Sun, 11/1/09, Robin Landseadel <robinlandseadel at comcast.net> wrote:

> From: Robin Landseadel <robinlandseadel at comcast.net>
> Subject: Re: IVIV IV & Playboy article
> To: pynchon-l at waste.org
> Date: Sunday, November 1, 2009, 10:37 AM
> On Nov 1, 2009, at 6:50 AM, Mark
> Kohut wrote:
> 
> > For the sake of discussion, for the sake of my
> long-windedness today, the clarification I, at least, get
> when others respond,  I want to jump in here and just
> say:
> > 
> > I, too, think there is a deep distinct strand of
> cultural "conservatism" in TRP's oeuvre. Modernity has
> killed.........aspects of the human we should have
> conserved, to say it abstractly. To say it least.
> 
> That's semantic Humpty-Dumpty-ism. While it's true that the
> Conservative/Neo-Con "Official Story" concerns the
> opposition to the encroachment of government control, the
> reality is that's just a cover story. What the so-called
> "Conservatives" did and still do is increase militarism and
> corporate control. It's Three-Card-Monte played on a global
> scale. Using the term "Conservative" muddies the waters.
> "Conservationist" or "Gaian" or "Emersonian" or nostalgia
> for "Halcyon Days" might be a better fit.  At a certain
> juncture one realizes that the intent of the word
> "Conservative" has been hijacked by the plutocrats. Pynchon
> was explicit about that in "Against the Day":
> 
>     He was trying to pass on what he thought
> they should know,
>     when he had a minute, though there was
> never the time. "Here.
>     The most precious thing I own." He took
> his union card from his
>     wallet and showed them, one by one.
> "These words right here"-
>     pointing to the slogan on the back of
> the card is what it all
>     comes down to, you won't hear it in
> school, maybe the
>     Gettysburg Address, Declaration of
> Independence and so forth,
>     but if you learn nothing else, learn
> this by heart, what it says
>     here—'Labor produces all wealth.
> Wealth belongs to the
>     producer thereof.' Straight talk. No
> doubletalking you like the
>     plutes do, 'cause with them what you
> always have to be
>     listening for is the opposite of what
> they say. 'Freedom,' then's
>     the time to watch your back in
> particular-start telling you how
>     free you are, somethin's up, next thing
> you know the gates have
>     slammed shut and there's the Captain
> givin you them looks.
>     'Reform'? More new snouts at the trough.
> 'Compassion' means
>     the population of starving, homeless,
> and dead is about to take
>     another jump. So forth. Why, you could
> write a whole foreign
>     phrase book just on what Republicans
> have to say."
>     AtD, 93
> 
> > A...and, I will suggest, perhaps even more
> incorrectly, since discussing TRPs "politics" is such a
> No-No and No-Win Mug's game......[feel like a mug today.
> Been working hard saving a library system. We seem to have
> won, so what's a little mugging?}
> > 
> > That, perhaps, we might see TRP's "politics' as
> existing somewhere where the ideologies of the Right and
> Left meet:  where Libertarianism meets (non-violent)
> Anarchism.......Live Free or Die....Don't Tread on
> Me......Who will collect the garbage if anarchy rules? Why,
> we will, say the self-organizing people............
> > 
> > Later,
> > 
> > mark
> 
> . . . though one of the dramatic high-points of Inherent
> Vice is the scene where Doc whacks a couple of Golden Fang
> operatives. Non-violent my ass.
> 
> Again, look at the thread heading—I'll re-post what Doug
> Millson said:
> 
>     Whether Pynchon intended the novel as
> such will remain
>     debatable, but Robin's program of
> finding  TRP's autobiography
>     in there seems viable, after re-reading
> the Playboy article.
> 
> So re-read the Jules Siegel article. I seriously cannot
> think of a reason why Playboy would [or could] publish a
> piece with so many potentially libelous factoids as Siegel
> produces without there being some truth in it. Where's the
> lawsuit? Where's the retraction?
> 
>     "What are you always so afraid of?" I
> asked him. "Don't you
>     understand that what you have written
> will get you out of almost
>     anything you might get yourself into?"
> There was no answer,
>     but looking into his face, I could see
> his thought as plainly as if
>     has spoken out loud. "You think that it
> is what you have written
>     that they will want to get you for", I
> said.
> 
> http://waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l&month=0910&msg=144051&sort=date
> 
> 
>