Literary discussion?

[ish mailian]

Paul, I tripped over my own phrases and confused things, for I didn't mean
to imply that you or anyone else is a political conservative, whatever that
may mean theses days, but that the idea that the more things change the
more they remain the same is a conservative, that is, conservational or
inertial or elemental, idea. I was trying to get at the more complicated
idea, but I was a bit lazy and rushed so I wrote something cryptic.

The phrase, credited to any number of political thinkers, implies that
something does not change, something fundamental.

Getting away from politics, in Physics, we might say that the laws of
Physics govern changes but remain unchanged.



Perhaps it is, paradoxically, change itself. Which may be in the design of
all things.

The design, the laws, be they laws of Physics or laws of Heaven, may govern
all changes and never change. To be in harmony with the design or the laws
one must discover them and interpret them even as one lives in a world of
changes. So M&D. So GR.

This got me thinking of The Man in the  High Castle and the Trade Minister
who is deep into the Book of Changes, the I Ching, and uses yarrow stalk
devination in his decision making, to make good decisions, decisions in
accord with Heaven's design, as the Nazis advance, encroach on the Japanese
occupied West, and the Trade Minister is called on to provide geological
maps of the uranium in the states, a technological cold war of Nazis and
Japanese has developed and escalated, that, on the one hand Heidegger might
oppose, but on the other, his attack on Ontology takes a turn East.









On Sat, Jan 2, 2016 at 6:35 PM, Paul Mackin <mackin.paul at gmail.com> wrote:

> Haven't seen High Castle yet.
>
> If you aren’t a liberal when you’re young, you have no heart, but if you
> aren’t a middle-aged conservative, you have no head.
>
> Or, so they say.  Some truth there, of course.  But it's more complicated.
>
> On Sat, Jan 2, 2016 at 5:26 PM, ish mailian <ishmailian at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> A conservative idea: the more things change the more they remain the
>> same.
>>
>> What is it that does not change?
>>
>> Is it the basic ingredients? The elements out of which all things spring?
>>
>>
>> Or is it a design? Some principle that guides all things? To....a good?
>>
>> The Minister of Trade in the Man in the High Castle with his Book of
>> Changes?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Jan 2, 2016 at 4:34 PM, Paul Mackin <mackin.paul at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Never got to the New Yorker piece, but given the same work, say,
>>> Submission, the actual effect on the reader may be more a function of
>>> reader age than of author intent. The Young laugh at the misbehavior
>>> scornfully, believing human conduct must change. The laughter in the Old is
>>> more of a chuckle, knowing the more things change the more they are the
>>> same.
>>>
>>> On Sat, Jan 2, 2016 at 2:33 PM, Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I like the parsing of this distinction. Maybe that is the best way to
>>>> understand it.
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 11:22 AM, Paul Mackin <mackin.paul at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> > I would think a sincere satirist was one who cared about the effect
>>>> his work
>>>> > has on readers.  If he or she wants to change readers' consciousness
>>>> they're
>>>> > sincere.  Not sure about which category H fits into. Some call him a
>>>> > nihilist, not caring about nothin'.  But he's a fine writer.
>>>> >
>>>> > Kindle readers like me don't get to see the dust jacket.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 10:08 PM, Becky Lindroos <bekker2 at icloud.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Submission has been on my wish list for some time - it just got
>>>> boosted to
>>>> >> very soon after the new year.   Thanks.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Bek
>>>> >>
>>>> >> > On Dec 30, 2015, at 5:39 AM, Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > the jacket for SUBMISSION quotes Adam Gopnick ( New Yorker) calling
>>>> >> > Houellebecq " not only a satire but a sincere ( in italics)
>>>> satirist,
>>>> >> > genuinely saddened by the absurdities of history And  madnesses of
>>>> mankind"
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > My question: how does a sincere satirist differ from an insincere
>>>> one?
>>>> >> > Only answer I can think of is that it is Effective, real, artistic
>>>> >> > satire--contrasted with failed satire, not right, not deep, not
>>>> original.
>>>> >> > .....
>>>> >> > Pynchon's satire is sincere, right? swift's, of course, right?  I
>>>> >> > thought it was a virtual truism that the best satire springs from
>>>> idealism (
>>>> >> > sincere) showing up the real world's failings.
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > Sent from my iPad-
>>>> >> > Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l
>>>> >>
>>>> >> -
>>>> >> Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?listpynchon-l
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20160103/b8083cb9/attachment.html>