Tangentially Pynchon. see today's Google Doodle

Sat May 7 12:32:11 CDT 2016

Point taken. The picture you sent does depict a much more attractive scene, though; trees and space. I still say the other one is ugly, but that's subjective.

Www.innergroovemusic.com

> On May 7, 2016, at 1:22 PM, Monte Davis <montedavis49 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Umm -- space the buildings a bit more widely, add more lawns and trees, and you get this -- 25,000 residents in 110 buildings :
>  https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f1/Peter_Cooper_Village_and_Stuyvesant_Town.jpg
> 
> Which I hope didn't dehumanize me too much at 10 when my family moved there from a single-family home in a low-density Boston suburb, or my parents as they lived there for 25 years until they retired. We found it a safe, comfortable, impeccably maintained place to live, with a local social network not all that different from what we'd had before.
> 
> Which might be a hint that looking like a computer chip -- or the streets of San Narciso looking like copper traces on a circuit board -- doesn't actually tell you much. PCV-Stuyvesant Town differed from Pruitt-Igoe, above all in higher tenant income and social capital (and yeah, that meant mostly white and upper-blue-collar to middle-white-collar at the time), private ownership and management (and no, that is not a way of saying government can't do urban housing right). Those far outweighed the influence, if any, of design. Let's not aestheticize too much.  
> 
>> On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 12:43 PM, Keith Davis <kbob42 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> http://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/apr/22/pruitt-igoe-high-rise-urban-america-history-cities
>> 
>> This place looks terrible! It looks like a big computer chip. A horribly dehumanizing place to live...
>> 
>>> On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 6:10 PM, ish mailian <ishmailian at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I like you Morris. A good dog is hard to find.
>>> 
>>> On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 6:09 PM, ish mailian <ishmailian at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > So you are bored now and would rather we flame and fight and fuck with
>>> > one another? Is that it? Bring back the bad old days?
>>> >
>>> > Grow the fuck up. Get a life.
>>> > Of lick your balls for a while. Relax.
>>> >
>>> > On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 4:45 PM, David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >> The P-list is looking more & more like the good/bad old days, when you were
>>> >> Terrance.
>>> >>
>>> >> David Morris
>>> >>
>>> >> On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 3:14 PM, ish mailian <ishmailian at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>> You will listen to Monte.
>>> >>> Good dog that you are.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 10:57 AM, David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >>> > Ish,
>>> >>> >
>>> >>> > You have failed (once again) to make me pay any attention to your posts.
>>> >>> > I
>>> >>> > inevitably delete them before completing the first sentence.
>>> >>> >
>>> >>> > David Morris
>>> >>> >
>>> >>> > On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 9:49 AM, ish mailian <ishmailian at gmail.com>
>>> >>> > wrote:
>>> >>> >>
>>> >>> >> David,
>>> >>> >>
>>> >>> >> On this thread and on the Holocaust thread you have failed to
>>> >>> >> understand the use of terms. On the Holocaust, the post from Rich was
>>> >>> >> very good. I suggest you re-read it and reconsider how the words, like
>>> >>> >> "depict",  "holocaust" , "genocide" are being used by your
>>> >>> >> interlocutors. Rich demonstrates, with a gentle didactic post, a
>>> >>> >> strategy you seem to prefer but hypocritically rarely employ,  much
>>> >>> >> knowledge of the camps and what happened at each and how one could
>>> >>> >> certainly, as Doug has, for example, conclude that the holocaust is
>>> >>> >> present in GR. On Anarchy, Mark intimated that the word has several
>>> >>> >> meanings and that he was not using the term to mean no planning or the
>>> >>> >> lack of any plan. Again, if you reconsider your rigid readings of
>>> >>> >> terms, you, an obvious authority, may still, learn something new.
>>> >>> >>
>>> >>> >> On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 9:37 AM, David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com>
>>> >>> >> wrote:
>>> >>> >> > I also apologize for taking my objection to the label too far.  The
>>> >>> >> > fact
>>> >>> >> > that others have slapped the anarchy label on her isn't much of an
>>> >>> >> > argument
>>> >>> >> > about the content of her theories.  My post about her championing the
>>> >>> >> > "urban
>>> >>> >> > villiage" against Pruitt-Igoe is the most direct description of her
>>> >>> >> > work.  I
>>> >>> >> > would call that "organic."
>>> >>> >> >
>>> >>> >> > I agree it is semantic, but "anarchy" has connotations of
>>> >>> >> > "no-planning"
>>> >>> >> > that
>>> >>> >> > don't fit her at all. The fact that the Austrian Economics Cult
>>> >>> >> > embraced
>>> >>> >> > (hijacked) her as "Anti-Planner" shows how labels can be misleading
>>> >>> >> > and
>>> >>> >> > counter-productive.  Their "connection" with her is parasitic.
>>> >>> >> >
>>> >>> >> > David Morris
>>> >>> >> >
>>> >>> >> >
>>> >>> >> >
>>> >>> >> > On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 7:12 AM, Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com>
>>> >>> >> > wrote:
>>> >>> >> >>
>>> >>> >> >> OK...I apologize for going on after my simple post yesterday....I
>>> >>> >> >> did
>>> >>> >> >> not
>>> >>> >> >> think it was so contestable.
>>> >>> >> >> as this wiki entry sez, as is true of most major words describing
>>> >>> >> >> ideas,
>>> >>> >> >> 'There are many meanings to
>>> >>> >> >> anarchism and not all of them are mutually exclusive"
>>> >>> >> >>
>>> >>> >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism
>>> >>> >> >>
>>> >>> >> >> In yesterday's Google Doodle article and in many summary
>>> >>> >> >> presentations
>>> >>> >> >> of
>>> >>> >> >> Ms Jacobs' notions,
>>> >>> >> >> the phrase 'street ballet" from her (or about her vision, don't
>>> >>> >> >> know)
>>> >>> >> >> is
>>> >>> >> >> used as the positive vision she
>>> >>> >> >> argued for deeply re the ineradicable human quality she believed
>>> >>> >> >> necessary
>>> >>> >> >> for right city life.
>>> >>> >> >>
>>> >>> >> >> Knowing her work far less than Morris, that phrase and concept came
>>> >>> >> >> to
>>> >>> >> >> remind me later of, among other things,
>>> >>> >> >> the anarchist's dance scene in Lot 49, under the bridge, everyone
>>> >>> >> >> not
>>> >>> >> >> bumping, a self-organizing dance/ballet
>>> >>> >> >> that is part of TRP's vision, his hopeful vision. Then there is the
>>> >>> >> >> anarchy theme in Against the Day.
>>> >>> >> >>
>>> >>> >> >> When I would walk NY streets, including the Village or visit
>>> >>> >> >> Washington
>>> >>> >> >> Square or Union Square parks and see
>>> >>> >> >> 1) chess hustlers playing 2) skateboarders 3) walkers 4) runners 5)
>>> >>> >> >> simple
>>> >>> >> >> stretchers and exercisers 6) sunbathers
>>> >>> >> >> sunning 6) couples holding hands 7) couples canoodling 8) little
>>> >>> >> >> picnics
>>> >>> >> >> 9) readers sitting 10) kids playing marbles
>>> >>> >> >> and more ....I would lightly marvel at how it all happened on its
>>> >>> >> >> own,
>>> >>> >> >> self-organized, little or no bumping, so to say,  later coming to
>>> >>> >> >> see
>>> >>> >> >> it under the label of a kind of social anarchy good.
>>> >>> >> >>
>>> >>> >> >> My attempt yesterday to link Jacobs 'street ballet' to a Pynchon's
>>> >>> >> >> notion
>>> >>> >> >> of anarchy was just a speculative attempt
>>> >>> >> >> to point out that he lived in the Village when Jane was an activist
>>> >>> >> >> with
>>> >>> >> >> her 'radical' notions; he was around when her
>>> >>> >> >> first book was published......I have asked myself and haven't found
>>> >>> >> >> it
>>> >>> >> >> in
>>> >>> >> >> the scholars of TRP I've read where TRP's notions
>>> >>> >> >> re anarchism might have come from....theorists like Kropotkin and
>>> >>> >> >> Herzen---we know he went to see Stoppard's play
>>> >>> >> >> on all these Russians decades later so there is them as a possible
>>> >>> >> >> influence but I have also wondered about
>>> >>> >> >> such as New Yorkers Goodman and Jacobs....
>>> >>> >> >>
>>> >>> >> >>
>>> >>> >> >>
>>> >>> >> >> On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 7:48 AM, John Bailey <sundayjb at gmail.com>
>>> >>> >> >> wrote:
>>> >>> >> >>>
>>> >>> >> >>> Oh! I finally got the joke!
>>> >>> >> >>> Wherein the P-list debates the definition of anarchy.
>>> >>> >> >>> I'm with Joseph.
>>> >>> >> >>> But what we really need is a someone who can authorise which
>>> >>> >> >>> definition is correct.
>>> >>> >> >>>
>>> >>> >> >>>
>>> >>> >> >>> On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 9:02 PM, Joseph Tracy <brook7 at sover.net>
>>> >>> >> >>> wrote:
>>> >>> >> >>> > To my thinking this is semantic. If by anarchic we mean mean an
>>> >>> >> >>> > organizational tendency from less to no central authority or
>>> >>> >> >>> > command, then
>>> >>> >> >>> > Mark and other writers are using the term reasonably. If one
>>> >>> >> >>> > means a
>>> >>> >> >>> > political ideology with no executive decision makers and a
>>> >>> >> >>> > committment to
>>> >>> >> >>> > removing those in authority, then you win...
>>> >>> >> >>> >> On May 4, 2016, at 5:13 PM, David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com>
>>> >>> >> >>> >> wrote:
>>> >>> >> >>> >>
>>> >>> >> >>> >> To champion grass-roots  social-based urbanism (championing
>>> >>> >> >>> >> "urban
>>> >>> >> >>> >> villages," essentially) as opposed to the modernist urban
>>> >>> >> >>> >> renewal
>>> >>> >> >>> >> ideals of
>>> >>> >> >>> >> her time, doesn't make her in any way anarchistic.  She was
>>> >>> >> >>> >> opposed
>>> >>> >> >>> >> to
>>> >>> >> >>> >> Modernism's ideals for urbanism.  It has now long been
>>> >>> >> >>> >> recognized
>>> >>> >> >>> >> that her
>>> >>> >> >>> >> concepts of an organic people-oriented urbanism is much more
>>> >>> >> >>> >> livable than
>>> >>> >> >>> >> what she opposed.  Essentially she was pointing out that the
>>> >>> >> >>> >> ghettos that
>>> >>> >> >>> >> were being torn down were much more livable that the Pruitt-Igoe
>>> >>> >> >>> >> style
>>> >>> >> >>> >> urbanism that was being proposed to replace it.  She was right.
>>> >>> >> >>> >> Labeling
>>> >>> >> >>> >> that stance as "anarchism" is silly and misses the main ideas
>>> >>> >> >>> >> she
>>> >>> >> >>> >> promoted.
>>> >>> >> >>> >>
>>> >>> >> >>> >> This (Pruitt-Igoe) is what she opposed:
>>> >>> >> >>> >>
>>> >>> >> >>> >>
>>> >>> >> >>> >>
>>> >>> >> >>> >>
>>> >>> >> >>> >> http://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/apr/22/pruitt-igoe-high-rise-urban-america-history-cities
>>> >>> >> >>> >>
>>> >>> >> >>> >> And the earlier city which surrounds the project (which was not
>>> >>> >> >>> >> the
>>> >>> >> >>> >> product of anarchy in any meaningful sense - except as opposed
>>> >>> >> >>> >> to
>>> >>> >> >>> >> Pruitt-Igoe)  in the photo is what she championed.
>>> >>> >> >>> >>
>>> >>> >> >>> >> David Morris
>>> >>> >> >>> >>
>>> >>> >> >>> >> On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 3:48 PM, Mark Kohut
>>> >>> >> >>> >> <mark.kohut at gmail.com>
>>> >>> >> >>> >> wrote:
>>> >>> >> >>> >> David,
>>> >>> >> >>> >>
>>> >>> >> >>> >> There is a deep strain of human-sized, freedom-embracing,
>>> >>> >> >>> >> non-top-down, self-organizing activities which
>>> >>> >> >>> >> have been written about even here as 'anarchism'. See the
>>> >>> >> >>> >> anarchist
>>> >>> >> >>> >> dance in Lot 49.
>>> >>> >> >>> >>
>>> >>> >> >>> >> Jacob's vision of city life has been seen under these concepts
>>> >>> >> >>> >> by
>>> >>> >> >>> >> many
>>> >>> >> >>> >> for a long time: Here is the estimable
>>> >>> >> >>> >> Richard Sennet for one: As Jane Jacobs points out, high
>>> >>> >> >>> >> concentration
>>> >>> >> >>> >> of dwelling units per acre and high land coverage are essential
>>> >>> >> >>> >> to
>>> >>> >> >>> >> the ...
>>> >>> >> >>> >> 1969), and the appreciative review by Richard Sennett, “The
>>> >>> >> >>> >> Anarchism of
>>> >>> >> >>> >> Jane Jacobs,” New York Review of Books ...
>>> >>> >> >>> >>
>>> >>> >> >>> >> There are scores more which I am not hunting down. it is her
>>> >>> >> >>> >> vision
>>> >>> >> >>> >> of
>>> >>> >> >>> >> urban living, and parts of mumford's which might relate
>>> >>> >> >>> >> them to Pynchon and are what I was referring to.
>>> >>> >> >>> >>
>>> >>> >> >>> >> On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 4:12 PM, David Morris
>>> >>> >> >>> >> <fqmorris at gmail.com>
>>> >>> >> >>> >> wrote:
>>> >>> >> >>> >> Jane Jacobs was in no way connected to anarchism, but, like
>>> >>> >> >>> >> Mumford,
>>> >>> >> >>> >> she was a proponent of urban living, as are most architects just
>>> >>> >> >>> >> about
>>> >>> >> >>> >> anywhere...
>>> >>> >> >>> >>
>>> >>> >> >>> >> David Morris
>>> >>> >> >>> >>
>>> >>> >> >>> >> On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 2:32 PM, Mark Kohut
>>> >>> >> >>> >> <mark.kohut at gmail.com>
>>> >>> >> >>> >> wrote:
>>> >>> >> >>> >> about urban theorist Jane Jacobs. Read up and see that
>>> >>> >> >>> >> she shared many notions with Lewis Mumford, discussed a lot
>>> >>> >> >>> >> here on the List. Her ideas of a vibrant diverse 'anarchic'
>>> >>> >> >>> >> street
>>> >>> >> >>> >> and storefront life might dovetail with many of P's meanings of
>>> >>> >> >>> >> anarchic goodness.
>>> >>> >> >>> >>
>>> >>> >> >>> >> Remember that she lived in Greenwich Village, near Barthelme
>>> >>> >> >>> >> (therefore
>>> >>> >> >>> >> Pynchon) I believe and Grace Paley and her husband
>>> >>> >> >>> >> most of the time TRP was supposed to have
>>> >>> >> >>> >> lived there. I think.
>>> >>> >> >>> >>
>>> >>> >> >>> >> Everything connects.
>>> >>> >> >>> >>
>>> >>> >> >>> >>
>>> >>> >> >>> >>
>>> >>> >> >>> >
>>> >>> >> >>> > -
>>> >>> >> >>> > 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/?listpynchon-l
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> -
>>> Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?listpynchon-l
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> www.innergroovemusic.com
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20160507/f63262d3/attachment.html>