vector

[Keith Davis]

Only one of many recurring fallacies here in the Deep South.
On May 25, 2012 7:01 PM, "Alex Colter" <recoignishon at gmail.com> wrote:

> Ah, good point Jochen, I rush'd to explain the definitions without first
> consulting the Context... terrible fallacy, ever recurring here in the
> American South
>
> On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 4:01 PM, jochen stremmel <jstremmel at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> I don't see Desire as an object/target. (What would that make of
>> l'objet du désir, meaning the object where Desire is headed?)
>>
>> I wrote: Cherrycoke is speaking of the "Object we wish to examine".
>> And DePugh, home from Cambridge, answers with the words Keith was
>> asking about "A Vector of Desire". And "of Desire", in that case, is a
>> genitivus subjectivus, in other words: the Vector.
>>
>>
>> 2012/5/25 David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com>:
>> > LED's then? Mason surely knew of them. Did Mason write MD?
>> >
>> > The basic difference between your interpretation and mine is that you
>> > see Desire as an object/target.  I see Desire as an acting, moving
>> > force.
>> >
>> > David Morris
>> >
>> > On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 12:50 PM, jochen stremmel <jstremmel at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >> Don't mention it, Keith. But reviewing my mail I see that I should've
>> >> written: l'objet du désir. Computer graphics obviously made no sense
>> for Mason&Dixon and DePugh but "a quantity having direction as well as
>> magnitude" did.
>> >>
>> >> Best regards
>> >>
>> >> Jochen
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20120525/ec2c856d/attachment.html>