terror,paranoia,hilarity and calculated madness on the way to the transit of Venus- tone in chapters 456

Tue Jan 27 07:27:38 CST 2015

Thanks, Mark. I wasn't familiar with Mumford and this helps. Sounds like a
definite source for Pynchon.
Imagining that we can control forces that we don't understand is a risky
proposition. Is that what you were saying, Alice?
Maybe what we are capable of is channeling or redirecting a force, but we
may not be able ultimately to harness it and control it. Once you engage
with it and redirect it, it still moves under it's own...force...for lack
of a better word, and never in a straight line. There will always be some
deviation, since there are so many other forces that can act on it. Who can
predict the ultimate outcome?

On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 8:11 AM, Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com> wrote:

> As some listers have 'shown' pretty convincingly by inference (not
> least from examples in our current read, M &B D), Pynchon musta loved
> technics/science---as Mumford once did. Then, maybe, his 'vision'
> changed?, as we know Mumford's did.
>
> Mumford's MYTH OF THE MACHINE, 2 vols, 1967--1970
>
>
> "In The Myth of the Machine, Mumford insisted upon the reality of the
> megamachine: the convergence of science, technics and political power
> as a unified community of interpretation rendering useless and
> eccentric life-enhancing values. Subversion of this authoritarian
> kingdom begins with that area of human contact with the world that
> cannot be successfully repressed - one's feelings about one's
> self."[3]
>
> In the Prologue, Mumford defines his purpose here as "to question both
> the assumptions and the predictions upon which our commitment to the
> present forms of scientific and technical progress, treated as ends in
> themselves, have been based."
>
> Mumford dates the emergence of the "Machine" from the pyramid age
> (primarily with reference to Egypt, but also acknowledging other
> ancient cultures in that era which produced massive and precisely
> engineered structures). He uses the term 'Megamachine' to describe the
> social and bureaucratic structure that enabled a ruler to coordinate a
> huge workforce to undertake vast and complex projects. Where the
> projects were public works such as irrigation systems and canals or
> the construction of cities, Mumford referred to the "labour machine",
> and where they involved conquest he used the expression "military
> machine". The term "Megamachine" connoted the social structure in its
> entirety.
>
> William Manson writes that Mumford differed from other major critics
> of technology in that "[Mumford] emphasized that the ultimate function
> of social structures ("society") should be to enhance individual
> development and mutually beneficial patterns of social cooperation.
> Living in such conducive, humanly-scaled communities, individuals
> could develop their many-sided capacities (moral/empathic, cognitive,
> aesthetic, etc.). Technical means, if limited to these human purposes
> and values, could enhance such growth and social well-being." [4]
> Manson describes the dystopian vision of the future that Mumford
> warned of:
>
> "The beleaguered- even 'obsolete'-individual would be entirely
> de-skilled, reduced to a passive, inert, 'trivial accessory to the
> machine.' Technical surveillance and limitless data-collection--'an
> all-seeing eye' (Panopticon)--would monitor every 'individual on the
> planet. Ultimately, the totalitarian technocracy, centralizing and
> augmenting its 'power-complex,' ignoring the real needs and values of
> human life, might produce a world 'fit only for machines to live
> in'"[5]
>
> Volume I, Technics and Human Development
>
> Volume II, The Pentagon of Power[edit]
>
> The "pentagon" refers to:
>
> Politics
> Power (in the sense of physical energy)
> Productivity
> Profit
> Publicity
>
> There was clearly also an oblique reference to the Pentagon, regarding
> which he commented: "...the concrete form of the Pentagon in
> Washington serves even better than its Soviet counterpart, the
> Kremlin, as a symbol of totalitarian absolutism."
>
> William Manson writes that "Ultimately, Mumford advocated a negative
> revolt -- resistance, refusal, withdrawal - whereby individuals may
> reclaim their autonomy and humanly-derived desires and choices."
>
> Mumford's 'negative revolt" very like The Counterforce? Among other things.
>
> On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 7:02 AM, alice malice <alicewmalice at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Joseph Tracy <brook7 at sover.net> wrote:
> >> Yes. Poignant example. Also how technology is an extension of human
> lusts, fears, addictions, competing  world views.
> >
> > Isn't it the other way round? So Technology Extends human lust, fear,
> > addiction, ideology, and not only these negatives but also love,
> > security, generosity, cooperation, magnanimity, hope.
> >
> > Our boys are taking measurements to draw a boundary, an extension of
> > law, of agreement and settlement of a bloody conflict.
> >
> > But there is a problem with such arguments no matter how we make them.
> >
> > Heidegger, who waxes poetically into mystical poetic engineering and
> > seems a positive on humanity's capacity for wonder, for we can still
> > live well if we ally ourselves with forces beyond our control and
> > beyond our grasp, beyond our comprehension. But this doesn't work.
> > Look at China! India! Look at the postmodern human society. It doesn't
> > remain fixed and as it evolves its view of Nature shifts. The view of
> > Nature as a place, as a sacred space, as ineffable spirit, as garden,
> > as home, as dwelling....and as an unruly and hostile beast that must
> > be defeated, tamed, exploited...are in flux, and our position to
> > Nature is also not fixed and so we may long to dwell in the pristine
> > forest or we may long to cut the forest down and toil in the Good
> > Earth. Each age in each region responds differently to the call of the
> > wild. The coal age, now blackening the lungs of the Chinese is not the
> > coal age of English Industrialization because the technology and more
> > importantly, how Nature is perceived is different.  Where is the Earth
> > that is not subjected to this human view, that is not reshaped and
> > transformed by the extension of our evolving desires and needs? Where
> > is it that I may dwell in it poetically.
> >
> > Dwight Eddins wrote a unique and beautiful book with an unfortunate
> > name and a difficult introduction, _The Gnostic Pynchon_, and in it he
> > defines what he calls Pynchon's Orphic Naturalism. I think Eddins is
> > on to something.
> >
> > In any event, Mumford and McLuhan, Pynchon sources, perform magic too,
> > and are much better reads than Heidegger, let alone those unreadable
> > D&G guys, and each, in the end puts a positive spin on Technology, but
> > if you read only the history of what Mumford provides and not hos more
> > positive view of the future, it seems about right and GR, I've always
> > thought, takes much from Mumford.
> > -
> > Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l
> -
> Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l
>

-- 
www.innergroovemusic.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20150127/f034766a/attachment.html>