what's in a word?

Sun Dec 6 18:30:42 CST 2015

Thanks Danny, this is great.

On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 10:13 AM, Danny Weltman <danny.weltman at gmail.com> wrote:
> In Against the Day, "terrorist" shows up three times. The first time is in
> the context of "Anarchist terrorists," the second is describing the
> mysterious Gentleman Bomber, and the third in the context of "Antiterrorist"
> security at the World's Fair, which is again aimed at the anarchists.
> "Terrorism" shows up in the context of "the infant science of
> counter-terrorism" which is again mostly anti-anarchist.
>
> In Bleeding Edge, it shows up a few too many times for me to bother
> counting, mostly describing Islamic terrorism, once describing "neo-liberal
> terrorists," and once describing Soviet nuclear terror, although the word
> there is "terror," and some people have been plumping for definitions
> according to which this kind of terror isn't terrorism, so I'll refrain from
> making any judgments there.
>
> It's nowhere in Inherent Vice - the word "terror" is only in there once, in
> fact.
>
> Near the end of V., "I Banditti" is described as "a gang of terrorists or
> professional assassins" who "vie with one another in finding new and
> ingenious ways to murder."
>
> Terrorism shows up 3 times in Vineland, once when someone describes having
> mistaken Zoyd as "a real terrorist workin' for the State," once in reference
> to Japan's anti-terrorist subministry, and once describing how Brock "acted
> like a terrorist holding the place hostage" when he got mad.
>
> The only mention in Crying of Lot 49 is Dr. Hilarius, who, when holed up in
> his office with a rifle shooting at anyone who comes near, says that three
> terrorists with submachine guns are after him.
>
> "Terrorist" is the only form that appears in Gravity's Rainbow, and it
> appears once. I'll quote a big chunk:
>
> "He's a soldier," Luba simply meaning Tchitcherine, "and far away from
> home." Posted out to the wild East, and carrying on quiet, expressionless,
> and clearly under some official curse. The rumors are as extravagant as this
> country is listless. In the dayroom the corporals talk about a woman: an
> amazing Soviet courtesan who wore camisoles of white kid and shaved her
> perfect legs every morning all the way to the groin. Horse-fucking
> Catherine, ermined and brilliant, brought up to date. Her lovers ran from
> ministers down to the likes of Captain Tchitcherine, naturally her truest.
> While neo-Potemkins ranged the deep Arctic for her, skilled and technocratic
> wolves erecting settlements out of tundra, entire urban abstractions out of
> the ice and snow, bold Tchitcherine was back at the capital, snuggled away
> in her dacha, where they played at fisherman and fish, terrorist and State,
> explorer and edge of the wavegreen world. When official attention was
> finally directed their way, it did not mean death for Tchitcherine, not even
> exile—but a thinning out of career possibilities: that happened to be how
> the vectors ran, in those days.
>
> I don't have a digital copy of Mason & Dixon to mine - I doubt it has
> anything.
>
> The end.
>
> Danny
>
> On Sun, Dec 6, 2015 at 2:36 PM, Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> GREAT question and I don't know. Maybe some plister with electronic
>> versions and a Find function??.....
>> But I think the concept is dealt with clearly and ( maybe) cleanly in
>> Against the Day.
>>
>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>> > On Dec 6, 2015, at 5:10 PM, "kelber at mindspring.com"
>> > <kelber at mindspring.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Question: Does the word appear in BE or any of Pynchon's other works?
>> >
>> > LK
>> >
>> >
>> > Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > I see. But it is why I think WE should try to find misuse vs, " real"
>> > uses. By " real" I mean substantive with meaning. And, of course, words like
>> > this have multiple meanings, subtleties, nuances, historical changes.
>> > But the meanings are not infinite. so, some uses are wrong.
>> >
>> > Sent from my iPad
>> >
>> > > On Dec 6, 2015, at 2:45 PM, <kelber at mindspring.com>
>> > > <kelber at mindspring.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > I'm not saying that it's desirable for the word to be defined by
>> > > context. But it's the reality.
>> > >
>> > > LK
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > -----Original Message-----
>> > >> From: Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com>
>> > >> Sent: Dec 6, 2015 2:37 PM
>> > >> To: kelber <kelber at mindspring.com>
>> > >> Cc: David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com>, Joseph Tracy
>> > >> <brook7 at sover.net>, P-list List <pynchon-l at waste.org>
>> > >> Subject: Re: what's in a word?
>> > >>
>> > >> I would grant the truth of defined by context---as long as that does
>> > >> not mean anyone's contextual use...
>> > >> Right is using it to mean almost anything they want it to
>> > >> mean.....and
>> > >> some of the left want it to apply to
>> > >> just about every aggressive retort.
>> > >>
>> > >>> On Sun, Dec 6, 2015 at 2:19 PM,  <kelber at mindspring.com> wrote:
>> > >>> David, you seem to be taking a very rigid view of language, as if
>> > >>> there's some universal, unchanging definition of the word "terrorism" that,
>> > >>> if used, would guide foreign and domestic policy. Not every word, but most
>> > >>> certainly this word, is entirely defined by context.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> Laura
>> > >>>
>> > >>>
>> > >>> -----Original Message-----
>> > >>>> From: Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com>
>> > >>>> Sent: Dec 6, 2015 9:02 AM
>> > >>>> To: David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com>
>> > >>>> Cc: Joseph Tracy <brook7 at sover.net>, P-list List
>> > >>>> <pynchon-l at waste.org>
>> > >>>> Subject: Re: what's in a word?
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>> I ask related questions here on the plist so we might come together
>> > >>>> on
>> > >>>> a "valid use of certain words"....there are uses that
>> > >>>> are valid, albeit sometimes real tricky and nuanced to explicate,
>> > >>>> right?
>> > >>>> And I see part of our conversation as pointing out when such as
>> > >>>> mainstream media is using....with extended i.e. metaphoric meanings
>> > >>>> at
>> > >>>> the moment.....even as the meanings are and do change. Right?
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>>> On Sun, Dec 6, 2015 at 8:49 AM, David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com>
>> > >>>>> wrote:
>> > >>>>> The valid use of a word would normally be one in harmony with its
>> > >>>>> definition, unless one was being purposely perverse.
>> > >>>>>
>> > >>>>> David Morris
>> > >>>>>
>> > >>>>>
>> > >>>>>> On Sunday, December 6, 2015, Joseph Tracy <brook7 at sover.net>
>> > >>>>>> wrote:
>> > >>>>>>
>> > >>>>>> I’m just wondering if you could answer the question as to what is
>> > >>>>>> the
>> > >>>>>> valid use of the term ’terrorism’.
>> > >>>>>>> On Dec 5, 2015, at 8:36 PM, David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com>
>> > >>>>>>> wrote:
>> > >>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>> English is not Chineese. Context doesn't overrule everything,
>> > >>>>>>> unless we
>> > >>>>>>> let it.
>> > >>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>> David Morris
>> > >>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>> On Saturday, December 5, 2015, Joseph Tracy <brook7 at sover.net>
>> > >>>>>>> wrote:
>> > >>>>>>> so what then is the valid use of the term? I would like to hear
>> > >>>>>>> a bit
>> > >>>>>>> more.
>> > >>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>> Consider a reasonably parallel word: plagiarism.  It is derived
>> > >>>>>>> from the
>> > >>>>>>> verb plagiarize as terrorism is derived from terrorize. Anyone
>> > >>>>>>> can
>> > >>>>>>> plagiarize. You just rip off another writer’s words and claim
>> > >>>>>>> them as yours.
>> > >>>>>>> There is no gender restriction, no age limits, no ethnic
>> > >>>>>>> consideration. I
>> > >>>>>>> would say terrorizing is quite similar, there is no inherent
>> > >>>>>>> limit implied
>> > >>>>>>> in the word on who can terrorize. Groups can do it, individuals
>> > >>>>>>> can do it,
>> > >>>>>>> even animals can do it to other animals.  Terrorism is just the
>> > >>>>>>> noun form.
>> > >>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>> To my mind if a writer wants to further target or narrow the
>> > >>>>>>> meaning of
>> > >>>>>>> the term, then an adjective should be added like political
>> > >>>>>>> terrorism, racial
>> > >>>>>>> terrorism, intellectual terrorism.
>> > >>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>> One has to be a little careful when it comes to the ism ending
>> > >>>>>>> but this
>> > >>>>>>> is clearly not a belief like communism or pacifism.
>> > >>>>>>>> On Dec 4, 2015, at 10:38 PM, David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com>
>> > >>>>>>>> wrote:
>> > >>>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>> I think a clear understanding of the valid use of the term is
>> > >>>>>>>> the best
>> > >>>>>>>> first defense against its misuse.
>> > >>>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>> David Morris
>> > >>>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>> On Friday, December 4, 2015, Joseph Tracy <brook7 at sover.net>
>> > >>>>>>>> wrote:
>> > >>>>>>>> I think Laura is onto the key factor in what is going on now
>> > >>>>>>>> with the
>> > >>>>>>>> use of this word ’Terrorism’. It is needed, wanted, and used
>> > >>>>>>>> not as a word
>> > >>>>>>>> which might apply to a  range of circumstances, and be used
>> > >>>>>>>> variously with
>> > >>>>>>>> seriousness, with political precision, in apolitical context,
>> > >>>>>>>> even with
>> > >>>>>>>> humor etc., though all of those uses will appear in literature.
>> > >>>>>>>> It now fills
>> > >>>>>>>> a role as a political term which is directed almost exclusively
>> > >>>>>>>> at acts of
>> > >>>>>>>> violence by Muslims not aligned with theUS and to the extent it
>> > >>>>>>>> applies to
>> > >>>>>>>> anyone else it will be non-state groups or individuals with
>> > >>>>>>>> political
>> > >>>>>>>> messages or goals clearly at odds with Western media and
>> > >>>>>>>> cultural values.
>> > >>>>>>>> It is purposely undefined as a legal term, because then it
>> > >>>>>>>> could be
>> > >>>>>>>> logically applied to state as well as non-state instances of
>> > >>>>>>>> immoral
>> > >>>>>>>> violence against non-combatants.
>> > >>>>>>>>  This current use comfortably allows and legitimizes state
>> > >>>>>>>> violence,
>> > >>>>>>>> targeted abuse,  and the suspension of laws and imposition of
>> > >>>>>>>> intrusive
>> > >>>>>>>> surveillance, while expressing abhorrence for certain non-state
>> > >>>>>>>> uses against
>> > >>>>>>>> those we care about. That should make us wary of its use and
>> > >>>>>>>> wary of trying
>> > >>>>>>>> to agree with the media appropriation as a  narrow and purely
>> > >>>>>>>> pejorative
>> > >>>>>>>> term that can only apply on their unstated but implied terms.
>> > >>>>>>>>       NON-STATE HYPOCRISY
>> > >>>>>>>> Most  mass shootings by individuals have been by white men but
>> > >>>>>>>> there
>> > >>>>>>>> is no widespread fear or investigation of white men. Many Cops
>> > >>>>>>>> operate in
>> > >>>>>>>> dangerous and lawless affinity groups and have chalked up a lot
>> > >>>>>>>> of dead
>> > >>>>>>>> bodies that look like unjustified racist violence. Where is the
>> > >>>>>>>> media call
>> > >>>>>>>> for accountability and investigation there? Terrorism? The term
>> > >>>>>>>> certainly
>> > >>>>>>>> applied to the Ku Klux Klan, or the Brownshirts. Why not in
>> > >>>>>>>> this case?
>> > >>>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>> I remember the  global appearance of the word in its current
>> > >>>>>>>> application to be under Ronald Reagan with the fall of Soviet
>> > >>>>>>>> Communism and
>> > >>>>>>>> the need for new enemies. It was applied to THE Nicaraguan
>> > >>>>>>>> Government but
>> > >>>>>>>> not the contras and to Salvadoran rebels but not to the right
>> > >>>>>>>> wing
>> > >>>>>>>> para-military groupsIN El Salvador or their CIA helpers.
>> > >>>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>>> On Dec 4, 2015, at 3:35 PM, kelber at mindspring.com wrote:
>> > >>>>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>>> And adding to the confusion are the gray areas, such as the
>> > >>>>>>>>> Colorado
>> > >>>>>>>>> Springs shooting, where mental illness and ideology overlap,
>> > >>>>>>>>> or, as the San
>> > >>>>>>>>> Bernardino shooting seems to be developing into, a mixture of
>> > >>>>>>>>> ideological
>> > >>>>>>>>> inspiration and going postal. If there's some ideology in the
>> > >>>>>>>>> mix (how about
>> > >>>>>>>>> hatred of women, as in that Montreal shooting?), how much is
>> > >>>>>>>>> needed before
>> > >>>>>>>>> it becomes terrorism? What's the difference between
>> > >>>>>>>>> inspiration (from ISIS,
>> > >>>>>>>>> from Trump)and a direct order? In the present climate the
>> > >>>>>>>>> answer seems to
>> > >>>>>>>>> be: the Muslim factor. Muslim shooters are most, or even
>> > >>>>>>>>> always likely to be
>> > >>>>>>>>> labelled terrorists, while the rest get shunted into the
>> > >>>>>>>>> mentally ill
>> > >>>>>>>>> category. To the dead and wounded, it's a pretty arcane
>> > >>>>>>>>> distinction.
>> > >>>>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>>> Laura
>> > >>>>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>> > >>>>>>>>>> From: Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com>
>> > >>>>>>>>>> Sent: Dec 4, 2015 2:26 PM
>> > >>>>>>>>>> To: Danny Weltman <danny.weltman at gmail.com>
>> > >>>>>>>>>> Cc: pynchon -l <pynchon-l at waste.org>
>> > >>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: what's in a word?
>> > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>>>> yes, I fell back on my first 'studies'....Nechaev....and
>> > >>>>>>>>>> Laquer's
>> > >>>>>>>>>> definition a bit later.
>> > >>>>>>>>>> You are right, and I remember reading it in what you sent,
>> > >>>>>>>>>> about
>> > >>>>>>>>>> REIGN
>> > >>>>>>>>>> OF TERROR.
>> > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 1:46 PM, Danny Weltman
>> > >>>>>>>>>> <danny.weltman at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >>>>>>>>>>> If "traditional" actually means "original," the
>> > >>>>>>>>>>> "traditional"
>> > >>>>>>>>>>> meaning of the
>> > >>>>>>>>>>> term is the intimidation undertaken by the government during
>> > >>>>>>>>>>> the
>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Reign of
>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Terror in the French Revolution. If by "traditional" we just
>> > >>>>>>>>>>> mean
>> > >>>>>>>>>>> "what it
>> > >>>>>>>>>>> has meant up until recently," then the "traditional" meaning
>> > >>>>>>>>>>> has
>> > >>>>>>>>>>> changed
>> > >>>>>>>>>>> over time, as is the case with most politically charged
>> > >>>>>>>>>>> words (and
>> > >>>>>>>>>>> with a
>> > >>>>>>>>>>> good chunk of less politically charged words, too). A good
>> > >>>>>>>>>>> summary
>> > >>>>>>>>>>> can be
>> > >>>>>>>>>>> found in section 1 of this article:
>> > >>>>>>>>>>> http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/terrorism/
>> > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 10:38 AM, Mark Kohut
>> > >>>>>>>>>>> <mark.kohut at gmail.com>
>> > >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> I always thought the core 'traditional' meaning of the word
>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> was
>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> to
>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> kill/attack citizens when not at war.
>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 1:35 PM, Paul Mackin
>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> <mackin.paul at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> This is the traditional meaning of the word, I always
>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> thought.
>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Non-terrorist gun killing may be the greater threat in one
>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> sense, but a
>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> lesser one in another.  Fear can change people in bad
>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> ways, but
>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> THAT
>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> ship
>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> has sailed.
>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 12:44 PM, David Morris
>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> <fqmorris at gmail.com>
>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, by this logic, the motive of the killer determines
>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> whether
>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> violence is an act of terrorism.  Only if the intent is
>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> instill a
>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> sense
>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of danger/terror in the surviving populace would the act
>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> properly
>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> called
>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> terroeism.
>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> David Morris
>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 11:23 AM, Paul Mackin
>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mackin.paul at gmail.com>
>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "
>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As one friend pointed out, Paris is not actually any
>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more
>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dangerous
>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than
>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> before Nov. 13. What's changed, dramatically, is our
>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perception of
>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> imminent
>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> danger. And that makes all the psychological
>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> difference."
>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And that's what makes it TERRORISM.
>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/12/03/does-motive-matter-in-mass-shootings-like-the-one-in-san-bernadino/even-in-paris-guns-look-like-a-greater-threat-than-terrorism
>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> -
>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l
>> > >>>>>>>>>> -
>> > >>>>>>>>>> Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l
>> > >>>>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>>> -
>> > >>>>>>>>> Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l
>> > >>>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>> -
>> > >>>>>>>> Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?listpynchon-l
>> > >>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>> -
>> > >>>>>>> Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?listpynchon-l
>> > >>>>>>
>> > >>>>>> -
>> > >>>>>> Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?listpynchon-l
>> > >>>> -
>> > >>>> Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l
>> > >> -
>> > >> Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l
>> > >
>> > -
>> > Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l
>> -
>> Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?listpynchon-l
>
>
-
Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l