Why do we embrace conspir theories

[Paul Mackin]

It's not a "butthole assumpion" to accept the likelihood that Pynchon 
read Gaddis.  P is the type of writer who depends principally on books 
(as opposed to experience) for his material and besides you simply have 
to keep up with the competition.  But there's nothing in Gaddis, is 
there, that p couldn't have learned from a zillion other sources? G 
wasn't some kind of breakthrough philosopher that changed anyone's view 
of reality or anything, is he? (This isn't to imply  that G might not 
deserve to be considered a great writer.)

P

On 5/9/2011 10:00 AM, Mark Kohut wrote:
> 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...................