what's in a word?

Tue Dec 8 09:46:38 CST 2015

So work-specific is our writer. In ATD, in using the word, he aligns
it with the way America
coopted anarchy and anarchism as words to mean bomb-throwing murderers, leaving
any peaceful self-organizing libertarian meanings in the dustbin of
history...Something America does
well, unfortunately and an almost perfect example of (mis) defining by
contextual use.....something
America can do and well.

Conceptually, I think the Frank paragraph in ATD says scads about
'terrorism'. As I think the whole arc of
the Traverse family does.

Very interesting uses in BLEEDING EDGE. Here Pynchon seems to be
showing how ubiquitous the
word has become. As we have been showing. With 9/11 in the book and
that death inside The Deep Web,
Pynchon may in his rich ambiguity be finding another objective correlative.

in V., the 'old-fashioned' meaning of the word: terrorists as
murderers, in a gang. Being innovative in their
murdering.

Lot 49.....Dr. Hilarious, that comic figure, so full of paranoia that,
of course, he thinks his aggression is self-defense.
This image generalizes, yes?

And in GR, a terrorist is contrasted to the State, I think in those
string of images, we might say both sides of the
linkage have meaning because of the other word in the linkage...no
fisherman unless there are fish...no explorer without
an edge of the world to explore, etc.....

On Sun, Dec 6, 2015 at 6:13 PM, 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