BtZ42 p.14 But the Firm is patient,

[Mark Kohut]

C'mon, Joseph....he wrote "many" NOT NO and it may be a very feminist
remark---gawd, one such ambiguous remark makes him a sexist???---in that it
shows awareness of how constrained by the iron cage of a patriarchal
society women might have been. What could they do? we don't even know,
especially if one lived away from a major city, perhaps.

On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 2:37 AM, Joseph Tracy <brook7 at sover.net> wrote:

> Pretty sexist shit. Really Keynes knew of no women who made meaningful use
> of free time?
> > On Mar 27, 2016, at 7:31 AM, ish mailian <ishmailian at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > This is the Keynes essay NOB quotes at some length.
> >
> > A key passage here:
> >
> > Why, you may ask, is this so startling? It is startling because-if,
> > instead of looking into the future, we look into the past-we find that
> > the economic problem, the struggle for subsistence, always has been
> > hitherto the primary, most pressing problem of the human race-not only
> > of the human race, but of the whole of the biological kingdom from the
> > beginnings of life in its most primitive forms. Thus we have been
> > expressly evolved by nature-with all our impulses and deepest
> > instincts-for the purpose of solving the economic problem. If the
> > economic problem is solved, mankind will be deprived of its
> > traditional purpose.
> >
> > Will this be a benefit? If one believes at all in the real values of
> > life, the prospect at least opens up the possibility of benefit. Yet I
> > think with dread of the readjustment of the habits and instincts of
> > the ordinary man, bred into him for countless generations, which he
> > may be asked to discard within a few decades. To use the language of
> > to-day-must we not expect a general “nervous breakdown”? We already
> > have a little experience of what I mean -a nervous breakdown of the
> > sort which is already common enough in England and the United States
> > amongst the wives of the well-to-do classes, unfortunate women, many
> > of them, who have been deprived by their wealth of their traditional
> > tasks and occupations--who cannot find it sufficiently amusing, when
> > deprived of the spur of economic necessity, to cook and clean and
> > mend, yet are quite unable to find anything more amusing. To those who
> > sweat for their daily bread leisure is a longed--for sweet-until they
> > get it.
> >
> > John Maynard Keynes, Economic Possibilities for our Grandchildren (1930)*
> >
> > http://www.econ.yale.edu/smith/econ116a/keynes1.pdf
> >
> > On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 7:05 AM, ish mailian <ishmailian at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> Good to look into that _Life Against Death_ by NOB on this.
> >>
> >> The passages he quotes from Keynes are astounding.
> >>
> >> The Liberation from Bondage, from Laboring is Dread (like the Dora
> >> Slaves who find liberartion Dread)  But Brown, again, and we need to
> >> read that  Freud essay on Day-Dreaming (thanks again for posting it)
> >> rejects the fear of Bartleby and the Dora Slaves, for underneath the
> >> habit of labor is the immortal instinct to play.
> >>
> >> NOB also ties Mumford to Keynes and to Oedipa Mass, the dread of
> >> Virginia Woolf's granddaughters in America,  and the manufactured
> >> Feminist Mystic and the Mechanical Bride.
> >>
> >> Great Source for P that NOB.
> >>
> >> On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 6:27 AM, Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>> committed to the Long Run as They are.
> >>>
> >>> "in the long run, we are all dead"....J.M Keynes
> >>>
> >>>
> http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/05/07/keynes_in_the_long_run_we_are_all_dead.html
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Capitalizing Long Run here is a sure tipoff allusion, I would think.
> But we
> >>> haven't yet
> >>> talked about THAT quality of capitalization here, soon (enough) to
> ripen to
> >>> THE style of Mason & Dixon.
> >>>
> >>> We know easily why he does it with They and Them and The Firm, I
> think, but
> >>> why are other
> >>> terms chosen. [They and Them and The Firm get reified so abstractly but
> >>> perfectly this way, right?]
> > -
> > Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list
>
> -
> Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?listpynchon-l
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20160331/be7948ae/attachment.html>