Discuss

[David Morris]

Yes.  He somehow transcends their programming.  That's why GR mentions the
Golem, a manufactured being gone rogue, attacking its creators.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/Golem.html

Often in Ashkenazi<http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/Ashkenazim.html>
 Hasidic <http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/ortho.html> lore,
the golem would come to life and serve his creators by doing tasks assigned
to him. The most well-known story of the golem is connected to Rabbi Judah
Loew ben Bezalel, the
Maharal<http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/Loew.html>
 of Prague <http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/vjw/Prague.html>
(1513-1609).
It was said that he created a golem out of clay to protect the Jewish
community from Blood
Libel<http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/gloss.html#Blood>
and
to help out doing physical labor, since golems are very strong. Another
version says it was close to Easter, in the spring of 1580 and a Jew-hating
priest was trying to incite the Christians against the Jews. So the golem
protected the community during the Easter season. Both versions recall the
golem running amok and threatening innocent lives, so Rabbi Loew removed
the Divine Name, rendering the golem lifeless. A separate account has the
golem going mad and running away. Several sources attribute the story to
Rabbi Elijah of Chelm, saying Rabbi Loew, one of the most outstanding
Jewish scholars of the sixteenth century who wrote numerous books on Jewish
law, philosophy, and morality, would have actually opposed the creation of
a golem.



On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 8:09 AM, Keith Davis <kbob42 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Yes,  but he sorta goes off the grid? Maybe he sees through the
> programming, which is a kind of freedom from it?
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 9:07 AM, David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> By victimized, I mean programmed and manufactured for Their purposes.  So
>> when he goes rogue, he is still acting or reacting according to that
>> programming.
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, February 14, 2013, Keith Davis wrote:
>>
>>> Excellent. So, we are also victimized, but we might stumble into, what?
>>> What are the powers that we might stumble into, or that might overtake us,
>>> or become available to us, if we stumble out of "their control"? What a
>>> great fucking book!
>>>
>>> On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 11:34 PM, David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com>wrote:
>>>
>>>> But remember, he was victimized.  So stumbling might not be so random.
>>>>  He learned being controlled very early on.  It's when he slipped from
>>>> their control, into The Zone, that They wanted him dead.  He was a loose
>>>> golem, stumbling with new powers.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thursday, February 14, 2013, Keith Davis wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Without reading the ending again, which is what has to happen to be
>>>>> clear about this, my impression is that Slothrop escaped from the idea of
>>>>> owning a personal identity, though it didn't have much to do with his
>>>>> making any effort to do so, it just happened organically as a result of the
>>>>> experiences he went through. Escaped isn't a good description. Fell from
>>>>> it? Leapt from it?
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 10:56 PM, Joseph Tracy <brook7 at sover.net>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Or could Slothrop be an everyman and a made up somebody at the very
>>>>>> same time?
>>>>>> On Feb 13, 2013, at 6:00 PM, MalignD at aol.com wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > In which case, none of us is a Slothrop in that none of us is a
>>>>>> singular case.  We are all victims of the same experiment.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> > From: Ian Livingston <igrlivingston at gmail.com>
>>>>>> > To: Paul Mackin <mackin.paul at verizon.net>
>>>>>> > Cc: pynchon-l <pynchon-l at waste.org>
>>>>>> > Sent: Wed, Feb 13, 2013 11:42 am
>>>>>> > Subject: Re: Discuss
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > Ours is the first generation in human history to be raised
>>>>>> consuming petrochemicals in the midst of almost uninterrupted nuclear
>>>>>> fallout. What makes you think you haven't been experimented upon is called
>>>>>> denial in the psychoanalytic parlance.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 7:58 AM, Paul Mackin <
>>>>>> mackin.paul at verizon.net> wrote:
>>>>>> > On 2/12/2013 11:14 PM, Michael Bailey wrote:
>>>>>> > On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 5:47 PM,  <malignd at aol.com> wrote:
>>>>>> > We are not all the semi-famous Baby Tyrone who was handed over to
>>>>>> be the
>>>>>> > subject of experimentation.  Certanly I wasn't.  You, I don 't know
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > We are all experimented on as children.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > well, as a lad, my cousin experimented on me by putting my finger
>>>>>> in a
>>>>>> > vise and tightening it until I got a blood blister.  Setting a
>>>>>> > lifelong pattern, I stood there amiably and bemusedly, almost
>>>>>> savoring
>>>>>> > the feeling, until he tired of the experiment and opened the vise.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > Somehow our parents got word of it - I don't remember making a fuss
>>>>>> -
>>>>>> > and he was administered gentle verbal correction -- another
>>>>>> > experiment, nobody knows how that sort of thing will turn out, but
>>>>>> he
>>>>>> > grew up to be a kindly adult with whom I converse fearlessly.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > My younger sister once rendered me semiconscious swinging a
>>>>>> stringed pupet around in the air.  Hard ceramic material of some sort. I
>>>>>> never told on her of course.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > P
>>>>>> >
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> www.innergroovemusic.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> www.innergroovemusic.com
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> www.innergroovemusic.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20130215/75f7a6cb/attachment.html>