Why do we embrace conspir theories

[Mark Kohut]

Is this a fair speculation about TR vs. GR re patterns and their recognition?: 

in TR, pattern recognition is still a philosophical discussion.........

in GR, pattern recognition is (part of) the answer? 

P.S. I might on this topic suggest that C of Lot 49 is THE book most about 
whether
certain patterns are really there or a product of the mind is the major 
theme........

All of which leads me to speculate on nothing but my wind that The Recognitions 
might
have been a key work in influencing TRP into the Heisenberg Principle 
epistemologically. 


None of the stories, even Entropy and The Secret Integration, question their own
ways of knowing as the novels from V. do.......these, all, the stories could 
have
been written by someone like Hemingway or Fitzgerald (with some scientific 
metaphors) 

or Hawthorne, no?   

NOTHING after them is much like them. 

I know I am making some butthole assumptions about when, even if, TRP read TR 
but......



----- Original Message ----
From: Mark Kohut <markekohut at yahoo.com>
To: David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com>; Edward A Moore <edmoorester at gmail.com>
Cc: pynchon-l at waste.org
Sent: Mon, May 9, 2011 9:44:27 AM
Subject: Re: Why do we embrace conspir theories

David Morris:
--"Yes, but in GR the question at the forefront is always whether these
patterns are really there or a product of the mind.  And if they are
really there, who put them there."

Yes, but that first sentence is always the philosophical question, no? and 
historically
one of THE modern world's epistemological givens, as it were?

TRP found a massively organized way to frame the question, to show the question, 

to loop metaphors
and prose analyses wider than just about anyone? 

On Sun, May 8, 2011 at 5:32 PM, Edward A Moore <edmoorester at gmail.com> wrote:
> In Gravity's Rainbow, Pynchon, too, deals with how the mind has to find 
>patterns, yes? I mean in some actual words about same, not just in the plot 
>pattern...................