what's in a word?

Mon Dec 7 09:15:51 CST 2015

YEAH, but our author overlays...with Frank's thoughts and with
perspectives born of his vision.

On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 9:57 AM, rich <richard.romeo at gmail.com> wrote:
> that scene is pretty much rendered from themovie Duck You Sucker (Fistful of
> Dynamite) where James Coburn's laped Irish revolutionary turned anarchist
> gets himself involved in the Mexican revolution and blows up a train (and
> many other things) in similar fashion
>
> rich
>
> On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 9:33 AM, Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> " He swung down onto the step and was just about to jump when a
>> peculiar thought occurred to him. Was this the "path' El Espinero had
>> had in mind, this specific half mile of track, where suddenly the day
>> had become extradimensional, the country shifted, was no longer the
>> desert abstraction of a map but was speed, air rushing, the smell of
>> smoke and stream, time whose substance grew more condensed as each
>> tick came faster and faster, all perfectly inseparable from Frank's
>> certainty that jumping or not jumping was no longer the point, he
>> belonged to what was happening, to the shriek from ahead as the
>> engineer in the federal train leaned on his steam horn and Frank
>> automatically responded with his own, the two combining in a single
>> great chord that gathered in the entire moment, the brown-uniformed
>> federales scattering from their train, the insane little engine
>> shuddering in its frenzy, the governor valve no longer able to
>> regulate anything, and from someplace a bug came in out of the blind
>> velocity and went up Frank's right nostril and brought him back to the
>> day. ...
>>
>> "The explosion was terrific, shrapnel and parts of men and animals
>> flew everywhere....'a huge ragged atmosphere of gray dust, gone red
>> with blood...." ....Later it was estimated that sixty federates were
>> killed instantly and the rest were at least demoralized."
>> --p 983 AGAINST THE DAY
>>
>> Thanks, Laura for bringing this up. I think some meanings [re
>> terrorism] are clear but ...talk amongst yourselves first if you care
>> to.
>>
>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>> > On Dec 6, 2015, at 6:03 PM, "kelber at mindspring.com"
>> > <kelber at mindspring.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Frank Traverse on the bomb-train is portrayed in a sympathetic light, if
>> > I recall. I know you rate the book higher in the hierarchy than I do, so
>> > please correct me if this impression is wrong.
>> >
>> > Laura
>> >
>> >
>> > 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