Pynchon & Politics( Lacey essay)

[Bled Welder]

Al: Not AI, get your head out of the gutter:

"Just because a person uses logic, or computation, or even if she works to
revolutionize logic, does not mean that her method is logistic."

You can say that only because "logistic" is a word that that's not actually
a word.  It could possibly benefit from an 's' or on 'al' tacked to it's,
very square, hind-end.

Anyway the whole statement is absurd.  Imagine some poor sap, oh say Lord
Russell, who works to revolutionize the whole industry of logic without
ever once being the least bit logical about the whole business.

I think form his Analysis of Mind, something around page 467ish:
"That which has hitherto been called, 'logical', is really it's opposite:
not logical, or as we like to call it down at The Lords' Pub, it is absurd.
 In other
words, that which is absurd, is logical, and that which is logical, is
absurd.  Which is logical by virtue of its being, well, absurd.  Cheers."


On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 5:58 PM, alice wellintown <alicewellintown at gmail.com
> wrote:

> > Pierce is very logistic. That is the nature of his " analysis". He
> revolutionized Logic.
>
> OK. But I stick to what I wrote. It's a matter of terms. Just because
> a person uses logic, or computation, or even if she works to
> revolutionize logic, does not mean that her method is logistic.
> Descartes' method is logistic. He, like Peirce wrote about his search
> for and use of his method. Peirce, pardon the pun, doubted Descartes
> doubting, and this because he disentangled it, he used his method, not
> computation or logic, but analytic.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20130130/9ef46407/attachment.html>