V-2nd: Grasping and not...

[Emma Wrigley]

Oh good call Ian. I hadn't thought of Baldwin and unfortunately I'm
woefully undereducated in this field, but his thoughts on natural
selection and the human gene as a product of cultural and social
pressures (?) aswell as biology (would this be right) would certainly
have their place in a discussion here. I have to rush off and read and
learn!!



<-----Original Message-----> 
>From: Ian Livingston [igrlivingston at gmail.com]
>Sent: 22/6/2010 8:03:32 PM
>To: ecwrigley at excite.co.uk
>Cc: michael.lee.bailey at gmail.com;pynchon-l at waste.org
>Subject: Re: V-2nd: Grasping and not...
>
>Excellent point, Emma. I think you hit the hot spot in noting that
>Benny is a big boy, so to speak. A cadre of contemporary thinkers
>going back at least to Carol Gilligan, perhaps even to James Mark
>Baldwin and his understudy, Jean Piaget, describe psychological
>development as a progress in stages. The sort of self-centric
>development Benny embodies is relatively early the progress of
>development. Others, too, suggest that development along stages can be
>traced in terms of lines of development, such that a person like Mike
>Tyson might have fantastic development along the kinesthetic line, he
>might have the social skills of a third grader. So, I suggest, with
>Benny. He is a schlemiehl, not an idiot. He seems able to take care of
>people in way that is downright touching at times, but he seems to
>operate without a conscious understanding of why he does the things he
>does and it seems like he does them, ultimately, for his own
>gratification. His sexual relations do not seem to have the best
>possible outcome for his partners in mind, he has to be persuaded to
>do things for others' sakes. So I suggest he is not really capable of
>including others' perspectives yet. Another thing about stages: they
>do not have hard divisions. A subject may be more or less at a given
>stage, with moments of greater or lesser development, but a "center of
>gravity" that is more rather than less, for instance, self-centric. So
>Benny is not mean or disregardful, just limited in his ability. When
>we get there, I think it is appropriate to look at Stencil using the
>same sort of criteria. He has his own "issues."
>
>All that said, none of this would likely have been in P's toolbox at
>the time he wrote V. Only Baldwin and Piaget were generally available
>on these notions at that time. It's sort of a post-mortem on an
>immortal character, in my mind, but it is interesting to think about.
>Baldwin is obscure and important enough to have crossed his radar
>somewhere along way, though, and Gilligan's studies during the 60s
>became downright mainstream over time.
>
>On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 11:18 AM, Emma Wrigley wrote:
>> I think Benny is more empathic than that and not necessarily that his
>> decisions/view are informed by his hardon. I just think that he is
somewhat
>> circumspect about what he allows himself to contemplate in others and
their
>> view of him and indeed afraid of what he may find when he does, which
I
>> think is one of the points that Mark was making in the first place.
My
>> perception (on this reading atleast) is of an immature masculinity, a
fear
>> of becoming a more rounded individual in relation to others and his
place in
>> society. He comes across as a boy rather than a man - to put it
crudely. As
>> to the original question of his fear of commitment I think that is
>> understandable in light of this and actually strengthens him as a
literary
>> character.
>> I agree that many (if not most maybe? I am sure Richard Dawkins has
>> something to say on exactly this. I shall look it up, if someone else
>> doesn't beat me to it) don't actually empathize on any deep level. I
suppose
>> that it is this which makes us capable of the things we do, and yet,
>> historically is it not this which marks us as the higher animals we
are? Our
>> ability to empathize. Nature is not cruel, it is just indifferent.
Actually
>> I suppose this opens another can of worms. Are we actually, on any
>> meaningful level, evolving through our ability to empathize. Are we
losing
>> it? Are we therefore regressing? Are Profane et al. living at a stage
where
>> they have reached the apex of the 'human condition' (whatever that
may be).
>> Is it all downhill from then on? Who are the 'empaths' and who are
>> 'indifferents'? Where does Benny come on the scale, is he in the
centre?
>>
>>
>>
>> <-----Original Message----->
>>>From: Ian Livingston [igrlivingston at gmail.com]
>>>Sent: 22/6/2010 5:47:45 PM
>>>To: michael.lee.bailey at gmail.com
>>>Cc: pynchon-l at waste.org
>>>Subject: Re: V-2nd: Grasping and not...
>>>
>>>Norming empathy sort of scares me.
>>>
>>>That said, empathy is perhaps a bit strong for what I was getting at.
>>>My point has more to do with Stencil's later adventures in
imaginative
>>>self-extension than with actually experiencing another's
subjectivity.
>>>I ain't Deanna Troy. Not even Marina Sirkis. And I do not really
think
>>>many humans actually empathize at that fantastic level. But to extend
>>>one's notion of reality to include the perspectives of others as
>>>referents seems valid, at least at the imaginative level. For
>>>instance, we try sometimes (some of us) to imagine seeing the world
>>>from P's point of view. I am not smart enough to actually grok the
>>>dude, but I can sort of allow myself to think, "Well, if I had read
>>>all this shit and understood a great deal of it, lived a life that
>>>took me to the places Pynchon went, and hung out with his peers, what
>>>would I mean when I wrote this part?" It doesn't mean I'd get it any
>>>better--like Stencil, I'd just be trying to imagine it in order to
>>>broaden my way of looking at the material. Benny seems incapable of
>>>any such conscious awareness of anyone else's point of view. He seems
>>>to be informed, as you note, by his hardon, not by consideration of
>>>what someone else might think of it.
>>>
>>>On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 2:17 AM, Michael Bailey
>>> wrote:
>>>> , Ian Livingston wrote:
>>>>> Good point, Emma. The capacity to imaginatively enter another
person's
>>>>> perspective is not available to someone at a self-centric stage of
>>>>> development. One of the things that marks Benny is his experience
of
>>>>> the world as a bifurcated phenomenon composed of his subjective
>>>>> experience and the otherness of everything else. That alienation
is
>>>>> irremediable until the subject discovers that others actually
>>>>> experience the world from very different perspectives every bit as
>>>>> real as one's own. I'm trying to think if there is any point in
the
>>>>> novel where Benny actually moves into that capacity. Will have to
>>>>> watch as we go. Or be corrected by someone who sees something I
>>>>> don't....
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> not trying to correct, but add to the discussion a bit,
>>>> wondering what is a "normative" quantity for empathy?
>>>>
>>>> it's a multidimensional quandary:
>>>>
>>>> a) perception of one's own feelings fluctuates in intensity, so to
feel
>>>> the
>>>pain
>>>> (or pleasure - a lot of times I forget to think of that
possibility,
>>>> when considering
>>>> the ramifications of empathy) - so to feel someone else's
experience
>>>> as if it were your own,
>>>> might not be all that intense, or it might be overwhelming...
>>>>
>>>> b) if you're in a shared situation, the other person's feelings
might
>>>> overlap your own anyway
>>>> - one of the things about V. that I think few would deny, is
there's a
>>>> shared malaise abroad that
>>>> Benny and the WSC respond to in different ways, but perhaps feel or
>>>> experience in a similar way
>>>> - but the mere sharing of experience falls short of a positive
sharing
>>>> of selfhood that would qualify for the praiseworthy connotations of
>>>> "empathy"
>>>>
>>>> c) in fact, there's a reading that appeals to me, where Stencil's
>>>> seeking in history the roots of that malaise, and/or an
understanding
>>>> of V. as an antidote to it (that is, the understanding of V. would
be
>>>> the anodyne), somehwat as a psychiatric patient seeks in analysis
to
>>>> understand the forces shaping his or her condition...
>>>> - and what seems to be a major theme is the way that the
consequences
>>>> of socially established violence, personified in Pig Bodine
wrapping
>>>> his hairy arm around Benny (since he includes both the disgusting
>>>> parts and the saving graces), pervade the landscape, and limit -
but
>>>> do not preclude - the possibilities for love, kindness, meaningful
>>>> work...
>>>>
>>>> I've 
>
>=== message truncated === 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20100622/4ed72e6f/attachment.html>