Pynchon knows this, I say. Sorta always known.

[alice wellintown]

Cool beans.

On Friday, May 31, 2013, Joseph Tracy wrote:

>  But scientists and technologists are not merely adjuncts to bad political
> pressures, they sometimes lead the way into ethically abusive terrain, atom
> & then hydrogen bombs, nuclear power plants sited on unstable terrain(
> Fukushima) with approval of scientists, medical scientists came up with the
> things like the Tuskeegee syphilis experiments, US military experiments
> exposing people to radioactive materials, MK Ultra's experiments using
> drugs, sensory deprivation and torture on unwitting Canadians. The Nazi
> "medical" experiments were often as "scientific" as current experiments on
> rats.  The  pragmatic, for some more than others, philosophy  of
> "Scientific advancement " demands that materials be mined and provided
> cheaply no matter the human and eco costs. Science and the products
> generated by science demand access to the materials and cannot ask for a
> free pass.
>
> Sometimes scientists provide the disease and then the cure as in DDT, HFCs
> ,phthalates, and Thalidimide. With global warming there may be no cure
>
>  You want to say these things are entirely political, but politicians do
> not make dioxins or PCBs, do not figure out how to mine with mercury, are
> not the inventors of fossil fuel technologies or new plastics and other
> products  and techniques that poison the waters and soils.. The presumption
> that all the questions and difficulties we face are neatly divisible in
> such a way as to absolve  scientists and the  scientific method is not an
> idea to which I will be genuflecting.  The science we inherit  has relied
> heavily on  analysis through dissection, dissolution, explosion and the
> reduction of all things to the observable component parts. This has been a
> mindset with some very dark consequences because life, and the only reality
> humans can actually experience is interactive, conscious, interdependent
> and more than the sum of parts or rules. There is no rule by which things
> desire to live, and no methodology of science has ever produced a living
> reproductive organism. Once again as in the original article there is a
> large gap between what  science claims  to know and what can be
> demonstrated by experiment.  Scientific practice is not  able to be
> isolated as some pure and benign pursuit. It has been heavily fueled
> throughout history by war and greed and has itself fueled war, injustice
> and avarice.  Some of this comes out with heart-rending intensity in Mason
> and Dixon, Gravity's Rainbow, and Against the Day.. Equally so in The
> Metaphysical Club, Frankenstein, A Brave New World.
>
>
> On May 30, 2013, at 10:44 PM, David Morris wrote:
>
> > Good point.
> > But your beef is entirely political.  It has nothing to do with science
> or philosophy, except beyond their application in politics.
> > In the US 3rd parties are almost lays losers.  You seem to be advocating
> a allegiance of scientist as a political voice.  And Amen!
> > But that goal isn't about science or philosophy.  It's about pragmatics.
> >
> > David Morris
> >
> > On Thursday, May 30, 2013, Joseph Tracy wrote:
> > No.  I respect and love and admire the creative and inventive
> possibilities released by scientific inquiry. But science and scientists do
> also get used for, and sometimes actively participate in some real bad
> shit. What I was meaning to say and I can see how easily I could be
> misunderstood was that we have many global problems that seem to require
> the immediate attention and investment of modern science: global warming,
> toxic materials in food air and water, rampant hunger and disease,
> deforestation, etc. but instead of applying the  powers of science to those
> issues we are spending money on hadron colliders and giant space
>  telescopes looking for the beginning of the universe.   The thing is there
> is really no need to rush these extremely expensive  and/or theoretical
> projects and every reason to rush to find better solutions for some of the
> major issues of immediate planetary concern.
> >
> >
> >
> > On May 30, 2013, at 5:46 PM, MalignD at aol.com <javascript:;> wrote:
> >
> > > So Copernicus, Tycho Brahe, Kepler, Newton, et al are to be held
> responsible for AIDS, ebola virus, Lyme disease, etc.  I admit, I hadn't
> considered that.
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Joseph Tracy <brook7 at sover.net <javascript:;>>
> > > To: P-list List <pynchon-l at waste.org <javascript:;>>
> > > Sent: Wed, May 29, 2013 11:45 pm
> > > Subject: Re: Pynchon knows this, I say. Sorta always known.
> > >
> > > I think part of the point though is that there is growing evidence
> that science
> > > is up against the limits of empiricism and has moved it's brightest
> physicists
> > > toward spewing out untestable multidimensional string theory and
> spending
> > > billions to collide beams in  search of Higgs's God particle. Is this
> not some
> > > kind of pseudo scientific holy grail that is as much philosophy as
> physics? Will
> > > a unified interpretation follow? How real is the thing they may or may
> not have
> > > found and what exactly is the question being answered? Cuz it's
> getting mighty
> > > hot around here, lots of people with malaria, aids, Lymes, Ebola Lots
> of
> > > children starving, species disappearing,  fibers in the web of life
> breaking,
> > > lot's of carbon and methane in the wind, toxic shit floating  down the
> > > river,arsenic in the rice, radioactive towns, a great deal of it
> thanks to the
> > > scientific revolution.
> > > On May 29, 2013, at 6:31 PM,
> > > MalignD at aol.com <javascript:;>
> > >  wrote:
> > >
> > > > Must disagree.  Shallow, strawman arguments that seem ignorant of
> the fact
> > > that disagreement, challenge, sometimes piecemeal answers are part of
> science
> > > and a large part of what makes it powerful.
> > > >
> > > > The questions he mentions are tough, and certainly there are no easy
> answers.
> > > But to suggest we're going to philosophize our way to them is ...
> well:  good
> > > luck.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Keith Davis <
> > > kbob42 at gmail.com <javascript:;>
> > > >
> > > > To: Joseph Tracy <
> > > brook7 at sover.net <javascript:;>
> > > >
> > > > Cc: P-list List <
> > > pynchon-l at waste.org <javascript:;>
> > > >
> > > > Sent: Wed, May 29, 2013 3:24 pm
> > > > Subject: Re: Pynchon knows this, I say. Sorta always known.
> > > >
> > > > Amen
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 10:31 AM, Joseph Tracy <
> > > brook7 at sover.net <javascript:;>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > This is an excellent, brief but substantial rebuttal to the tidy
> mathematical
> > > models of Hawking and his presumptions about the meaning and
> explanatory power
> > > of those models. Hawking sees himself as part of the clear-headed
> data-based
> > > scientific revolution, when he is largely a conservative voice
> defending a
> > > particular POV that has been around with variations since the
> Enlightenment. I
> > > often feel that science has been politicized into the same
> name-calling and two
> > > party divisions which dominate political thought. It's a matter of
> survival,
> > > allies in a tough market place rather than truly independent thinking
> .  All of
> > > this is discussed in Pynchon's essay( Is it O.K. to be a Luddite?)
> referring to
> > > CP Snow's lecture- "The Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution" .
> > > >
> > > > Mostly it looks a lot like talking monkeys heaving shit at each
> other when
> > > they/we reach the limits of their/our ability to  explain, know or
> understand.
> > > To me part of the mindset I have imperfectly come to ( I still throw
> shit from
> > > time to time), is a willingness to live with many unanswered
> questions. I feel
> > > less hardened in this space, and I feel Pynchon and many artists
> occupy this
> > > space and ask us to try it out.  It allows for the deepest kind of
> curiosity
> > > without promising answers. I think it allows for taking philosophic ,
> spiritual,
> > > or moral positions without being self -righteously blind to the
> inconsistencies
> > > or problems in our model.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On May 27,
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20130601/6a58032b/attachment.html>