The Master Production Notes

[Paul Mackin]

On 2/12/2013 10:09 PM, David Morris wrote:
> But I still posit that Slothrup is a golem.  That's too obvious to be 
> denied.  They made him and sent him on a mission, and then sought his 
> demise.  They feared their manufactured being.  His response was 
> peace, as an example, as the right way.  His fading away was that 
> peaceful response.

(was  he a rallying point?)

SPOKESMAN: No, not even that. Opinion even at the start was divided. It 
was one of our fatal weaknesses. [I'm sure you want to hear about fatal 
weaknesses.] Some called him a "pretext." Others felt that he was a 
genuine, point-for-point microcosm. The Microcosmists, as you must know 
from the standard histories, leaped off to an early start. We--- it was 
a very odd form of heretic-chasing, really. Across the Low Countries, in 
the summer. It went on in fields of windmills, marshlands where it was 
almost too dark to get . . . .    p. 738

Who really was Slothrop?

P

Pynchon, Thomas (2012-06-13). Gravity's Rainbow (p. 738). Penguin Group. 
Kindle Edition.
>
> I don't believe he is P's  ultimate model.  Anarchistic Buddhism?
>
> What would that be?
>
> DM
>
> On Tuesday, February 12, 2013, David Morris wrote:
>
>     Apologies,
>     Late Lundi Gras post last night was a mess.  Wish you were here!
>     David Morris
>
>     On Tuesday, February 12, 2013, Michael Bailey wrote:
>
>         On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 5:01 AM, Monte Davis
>         <montedavis at verizon.net> wrote:
>
>         >
>         >
>         > And however that works out, I urge a clear distinction
>         between golem Buddhasultimate mo
>         > and Gollum Buddhas. Quite different teaching styles.
>
>
>         yes, my preciousssss
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20130213/e5b6c7b8/attachment.html>