Pynchon & Math (Aristotle vs. Plato)

[Paul Mackin]

On 1/26/2013 7:02 AM, Monte Davis wrote:
>
> I think there may be a conflation of "reality" with "exactness" and 
> "precision" lurking here. First, a silly and wise old science/math 
> joke: A wealthy horse fancier decides to bring science to bear on his 
> passion, and hires three professors to learn what makes the fastest 
> horse. A year later, the biologist tells him: "There appears to be an 
> association with descent from the Darley Arabian, and with high levels 
> of creatine phosphatase." The engineer tells him: "The optimal ratio 
> of third metacarpal length to proximal phalanx length is between 2.15 
> and 2.35." And the physicist tells him: "I'm making real progress on 
> the frictionless spherical homogeneous horse."
>
> Pedestrian (bipedal) unfolding: in the spectrum sketched here, the 
> mathematical-physics end promises rigor and precision -- and maybe, 
> down the line, predictive power -- *because* of its abstraction. The 
> initial model is chosen to be mathematically tractable, and to have no 
> relevant attributes that are not explicit in the model. At the other 
> end, the biologist is much less certain: so many other developmental 
> and environmental factors are at work that these two are bare starting 
> points. And the engineer, somewhere in between, settles for a working 
> rule of, uhh, thumb that could actually be applied (and evaluated, and 
> incrementally refined) in the stable rather than the lab.
>
> Bertrand Russell's alternate, gnomic version: "Mathematics is the 
> subject in which we know neither what we are talking about nor whether 
> what we say is true." Again, the certainty gained by abstraction -- 
> whether 2+2=4 or Cantor's hierarchy of infinities -- may or may not 
> carry over to any particular entities "out there" which we talk about, 
> or to predictions about them.
>
> Consider the exemplars in AtD, from Yashmeen's airy math and 
> relativity to the purposeful metal of ocean liner/warships and 
> submarines and dive bombers. Consider the seriously punning 
> juxtapositions, such as "wormholes" blasted and drilled by sweating 
> miners, or a magic mirror smack dab in the reflective center of the 
> text. Pynchon has an extraordinary awareness of both the spectrum 
> (pure math -> mathematical science -> technology/engineering) and the 
> strange colors you can get by mixing.
>
> FWIW, I'm 90% Aristotelian: I do feel the Platonic and gnostic appeal 
> of abstraction/certainty, but I think it's the shadow rather than the 
> substance, not the other way around.
>

I'm definitely an Aristotelian.

Things take precedence over ideas.

An idea is just a thing, but a thing isn't just an idea.

Non commutative.

For example, Socialism is an  idea.  Only the idea of Socialism is a thing.

Capitalism is a half good thing and a half good idea.

Alice's half full glass.

P




> *From:*owner-pynchon-l at waste.org [mailto:owner-pynchon-l at waste.org] 
> *On Behalf Of *Paul Mackin
> *Sent:* Friday, January 25, 2013 4:07 PM
> *To:* pynchon-l at waste.org
> *Subject:* Re: Pynchon & Math (Aristotle vs. Plato)
>
> On 1/25/2013 2:07 AM, Prashant Kumar wrote:
>
>     The interesting thing about this dichotomy (in the proper approach
>     to Ethics) you mention is that it presupposes a  Platonic
>     conception of mathematics; mathematics as a menagerie of
>     axiomatically true pieces of abstraction.
>
>     A fallibilistic conception of mathematics (the mathematical
>     empiricism of Quine and Putnam), itself descended from the
>     american pragmatists, which conceives of mathematical theorems as
>     contingent truths, will result in a more nebulous notion of precision.
>
>     I would argue this sort of naturalism, nature as a series of
>     convenient but contingent truths, is a staple of american fiction
>     more generally. For example, look at how Pynchon handles the feud
>     between the Quaternionists and the Vectorists in AtD.
>
>
>
> "Mathematics once seemed the way--the internal life of numbers came as 
> a revelation to me, perhaps as it might have to a Pythagorean 
> apprentice long ago in Crotona--a reflection of some less accessible 
> reality, through close study of which one might learn to pass on 
> beyond the difficult given world."
>
> AtD. p. 749.
>
> P
>
>
>
> P.
>
> On 24 January 2013 22:57, alice wellintown <alicewellintown at gmail.com 
> <mailto:alicewellintown at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Several critical studies examine Pynchon and the American Pragmatists.
>
> I think a good place to turn is to Aristotle. Here in an Introduction
> we see a basic difference in Aristotle from Plato and Socrates, and
> specifically, on Ethics. The wisdom of Aristotle is that he accepts
> the idea that it is wise to examine or explore a topic only so far as
> the topic permits, that there is an exhaustion point, and that in
> Ethics, and in Politics, the topic does not allow for examination as
> it does in other sciences.
>
> Is the application of math to Ethics and Politics Fascist? Maybe.
> Maybe something in that GR....
>
> Is Plato a Fascist?
>
> No, but the math....
>
> The main difference between Plato and Aristotle is this: Plato thought
> ethics was an exact (theoretical) science; Aristotle thought precision
> was extremely difficult in a science such as ethics. Please note that
> "science" is being used in its ancient sense of knowledge in general.
>
> THE PROPER METHOD FOR ETHICS (Bk. I, Sec. 3)
>
> >From ethics one can expect only as much precision as the subject
> matter allows. This is opposite to Plato's belief, because it does not
> allow for any mathematical exactness. Does this mean, then, that moral
> rules are "conventions," made up or created by humans? No, they are
> natural, but they are not like Plato's immutable forms. Aristotle
> avoids ethical relativism because of his confidence in human reason
> and experience to decide on general courses of action.
>
> Plato approached ethical questions with a formal, abstract approach,
> analyzing each just as he would analyze a math problem. Aristotle,
> though, believed that because of all the human variables found in
> ethics (but not found in the formal sciences), mathematical precision
> was impossible.
>
> http://www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/103/aristotle.htm
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20130126/e936c69d/attachment.html>