A little leisurely lucubration...

[Indel Icate]

First off, I fucking loooove, above all things, leisurely lubrications, in
all there forms. (And "there" is right there).

Science, as we know it, is a tad....offf.

It's sad, in a humorous way, that Pynchon-talking is so seerious.

There is no such thing

There is us.  Realizing our quantumness.


On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 3:25 AM, Michael Bailey <mikebailey at gmx.us> wrote:

> a) I feel I've given Matthew short shrift in replying to his generous
> mention of several philosophers. Yes, to several of your points...also, how
> is Spain this time of year? Yes, there are many good philosophers from the
> 20th century who might, if fully appreciated, over time, change the idea
> topology from the Freud/Darwin/Marx triumvirate. Yes, a scientific approach
> is a good idea, and Kraepelin did a lot of clinical work and had a right,
> if anybody ever did, to gainsay Freud's emphasis on infant experiences and
> his linking everything to sex...what about love and other transformative
> experiences, for one thing?
>
> b) still I think the rush to psychopharmacology - his coinage was
> "pharmacological psychology" - was misguided in several ways. I read that
> he did reaction time experiments with alcohol, and became a
> prohibitionist...probably due to the results he saw...but perhaps there are
> reasons to tolerate slower reaction times in some cases. Likewise, noting
> that it's possible to tinker with neurotransmitters doesn't necessarily
> mean that that will immediately lead to a cure for behavioral problems
> except in the grossest sense of knowing that enough haldol will stop most
> activity, or enough amphetamines will increase certain types of activity.
> Leary et al made spectacular claims for their drugs of choice, but doesn't
> it seem like the other components of the psychedelic experience - music,
> art, and inventive verbiage - contributed as much or more to what was
> worthwhile about it?
> But, as you mention, Matthew, a scientific approach is not limited to
> drugs by any means.
>
> c) my reasons for not yet really digging into a BE discussion are rooted
> in my private life rather than any definite evaluation of the book. I keep
> thinking about the pear tree and the tongue polonaise, compared with their
> counterparts in V. and C49...likening that treatment to La Jarretiere in V.
> vis a vis in AtD and wonder if there are more instances of revisioning to
> be found, or - one also hopes - more to come. I find them tasteful,
> thought-provoking and unobtrusive.
>
>
>
> - Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20140221/59a80f91/attachment.html>