BtZ42 Section 9 (pp 53-60): at the window while he sleeps

Wed May 18 06:58:11 CDT 2016

Even if that overstates and misses---but one has to have a perspective on
his use of early Wittgenstein I think, I see the "strain" in behaviorism,
in American behaviorism.         But viva la differences.

On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 7:53 AM, Monte Davis <montedavis49 at gmail.com> wrote:

> "P scores heavily against that whole positivistic strain of the Vienna
> Circle..."
>
> Yes, we differ, because I don't think he's ever been in that business --
> or even that category of business -- at all.
>
> On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 7:26 AM, Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> We differ it seems. One of those ultimate interpretation possibilities
>> that verses to many ....I see the threatening of cause and effect itself to
>> point to science as an overdetermined explanation of the world,-- as well
>> as a power play by Pointsman and Jamf et al,--if science is all the world
>> IS.....I remember the fierce metaphysical satiric slam, if that is the
>> correct description of Mondaugen's use of Wittgenstein's positivistic
>> remark in V:
>> Every third letter spells “GODMEANTNUURK,” which is an anagram for Kurt
>> Mondaugen. ... letters read “DIEWELTISALL— ESWASDERFALLIST,” which is
>> the opening line of Wittgenstein's Tractatus, “The world is all that the
>> case is” (V. 278).
>> This was received as a code, remember.
>>
>> I think P links it intellectually to determinism among other places where
>> he has Roger see Spectro/Pointsman as
>> Calvinist, in a quote I recently posted.. Calvinist determinism
>> is anagogic here and beyond questions of power/control---as I see Roger
>> saying it as a blow to scientific determinism, since he wants to believe in
>> 'magic'.
>>
>> Esp when we see Pynchon actually repeat that phrase "you're gonna want
>> cause & effect" almost sarcastically further on, *by the narrator,* as
>> he then DOES subvert cause and effect in the text. P does allow the world
>> to have stuff in it that is NOT "scientifically"--in a narrow logical
>> positivism way---determined and he did not need all of this 'metaphysics'
>> or "philosophy of science" if he were ONLY showing totalitarian control and
>> domination, I suggest.
>>
>> P scores heavily against that whole positivistic strain of the Vienna
>> Circle, from Carnap thru early Wittgenstein--a presence in TRP-- and
>> lots in-between ,I think, thinking of the Vienna section of AtD (I have a
>> personal reading story here for follow-up).
>>
>> it reminds me a little of Moby Dick, of course an allegory (and more)
>> about a mad Leader of a multicultural Ship of State but
>> Melville also adds the religious/metaphysical with some of Ahab's
>> obsessed blasphemies. Starbuck knew it was more than personal madness: "
>> Ahab's vow to dismember his dismemberer needs further exegesis. In this
>> sinister allegorical framework, this sardonic promise to treat God even
>> as God has treated Ahab amounts to another Melvillian burlesque of the
>> Golden Rule."--one found snippet
>>
>> I see this GR interpretation as one way of parsing the Pynchon science
>> question: Of course he believes in it and "loves' it and
>> knows all it has done THAT is not used for power and domination over
>> others (unless we see oversubduing nature as a necessary element of science
>> gone bad from the beginning).  ONLY when it becomes to some the only
>> answer; the controlling tower in a culture [LOt 49]; a technological
>> step-function of Western history so high that one can't get back is it
>> clearly BAD SHIT in TRP, I suggest.
>>
>>
>> On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 10:53 AM, Monte Davis <montedavis49 at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I submit that the fear, suspicion, and satire are directed not at
>>> determinism -- or at science -- but at the ambition for control over other
>>> people and over the course of history.
>>>
>>> On p. 56, Pointsman frets almost hysterically about Roger: "in his play
>>> he wrecks the elegant rooms of history*, threatens the idea of cause
>>> and effect itself... is it the end of history?" Is that Pynchon's own
>>> mini-seminar in the philosophy of science, or science and society? Or is it
>>> the voice of someone interested and invested in Slothrop as a step toward
>>> predicting or averting the V-2s -- something his government paymasters want
>>> very much, even if it means vivisecting Tyrone?
>>>
>>> The portentous "end of history" is just parodic Henry Adams dressing for
>>> "My funding, my career prospects, and maybe even my Nobel Prize depend on
>>> showing that there's a meaningful pattern to V-2 impacts, and something
>>> that can be done about them... and Mexico is denying it!"
>>>
>>> * Himmler-Spielsaal, anyone?
>>>
>>> On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 7:37 AM, Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I think that in GR Pynchon 'fears' the too-logical determinism of
>>>> science.
>>>> Fears (and investigates) that supposed determinism. Allows thru Roger
>>>> and
>>>> in other ways---The Counterforce?---a possible 'escape" while
>>>>
>>>> Yes, he satirizes everything, everything....esp maybe in GR and AtD.
>>>> Fully,
>>>> totally, mind-bogglingly, in a hard to find a footing way....
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 6:30 AM, ish mailian <ishmailian at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Does P fear science? I doubt this is a supportable thesis. He
>>>>> certainly doesn't condemn it. Nor do all creative souls. So, Monte is
>>>>> making a point with sarcasm. What point? That foxes and dogs.....?
>>>>> Science, along with nearly all other institutions of power, of western
>>>>> culture and history, is subjected to P's satire. So, BTW, is art,
>>>>> religion, philosophy, mathematics, psychology, history, linguistics,
>>>>> statistics, Chemistry, economics, physics, biology, philology,
>>>>> anthropology....and so on. All are satirized with the conventional
>>>>> weapons of the satirist. For example, the obsession with The Book, is
>>>>> conventional. So much that P does in GR is not novel. The Book, the
>>>>> obsession with the Rocket, the quest...etc. One conventional strategy
>>>>> of the satirist is mock erudition. P loves this tool and uses it
>>>>> brilliantly. He also makes use of the satirist's cranks and hysterical
>>>>> characterization. He loves parodistic encyclopedism.
>>>>>
>>>>> As Kharpertian says, pp. 108-109, it
>>>>>
>>>>> exposes all explanatory codes as partial, problematic, or repressive,
>>>>> and the rejection of the monological nature of such autonomous codes
>>>>> leads to radical fusion and fantastic alternatives.
>>>>>
>>>>> A Hand to Turn the Time the Menippean Satires of Thomas Pynchon
>>>>>
>>>>> Theodore D. Kharpertian
>>>>>
>>>>> Kharpertian goes to school on decades of Pyndustry publications and,
>>>>> in a dense and clear style, shows how the ideas of V. and CL49 are
>>>>> combinesd in P's masterwork.  Not the first to recognize P as
>>>>> satirist, more specifically, Menippean Satirist, but a fine work,
>>>>> dense and clearly composed. Easy to read.
>>>>>
>>>>> But we know all this so....
>>>>> On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 9:52 AM, Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> > Monte writes:
>>>>> > 58.24: "Pointsman’s... his... a bleakness whenever she meets him.
>>>>> > Scientist-neutrality." How does that differ from Roger's commitment
>>>>> to the
>>>>> > data and only the data about rocketfalls, which was only recently
>>>>> "cheap
>>>>> > cynicism"...? Or is Roger's version of neutrality less creepy to her
>>>>> > *because* it makes him uncomfortable even as he insists on it? NB he
>>>>> > repeatedly, parodically *plays* the mad scientist in exchanges with
>>>>> her. If
>>>>> > I didn't know that Pynchon fears and condemns science like all good
>>>>> creative
>>>>> > souls, I'd think there's some quite interesting ambivalence being
>>>>> modeled
>>>>> > here.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > There IS a good mini-essay here on science and Pynchon in GR), which
>>>>> Monte
>>>>> > might write. Focussing leads me to offer
>>>>> > THIS possible reading: Roger believes that there might be SOMETHING
>>>>> > ("magic") beyond the "scientific", beyond the measurement of material
>>>>> > reality. ( One might be reminded of Oedipa's "something beyond the
>>>>> visible"
>>>>> > or not).
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Pointsman has no such belief. His science-neutrality is really a
>>>>> > positivistic belief in nothing but science.
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> > On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 11:50 AM, Monte Davis <
>>>>> montedavis49 at gmail.com>
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> end of P. 57 -> P. 58
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> Foxes and dogs again, among the latter a painted pointer "alerted
>>>>> by the
>>>>> >> eternal scent, the explosion over his head always just about to
>>>>> come." Good
>>>>> >> boy, Tyrone!
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> http://www.old-print.com/mas_assets/full3/J5141807/J5141807448.jpg
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/43/02/f0/4302f06cbc44b3b2e6fbc371f51b2bce.jpg
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> What makes these images -- standard English fare at the time  for
>>>>> exurban
>>>>> >> bourgeois as well as country-house aristocracy -- "even more
>>>>> autumnal,
>>>>> >> necropolitical, than prewar hopes"..? This section has reminded us
>>>>> before
>>>>> >> and will remind us again that Roger & Jessica's evasion  of the war
>>>>> is
>>>>> >> temporary and precarious -- but here we're told that golden
>>>>> autumnal meadows
>>>>> >> are *becoming* a City of the Dead (necropolis). Just a _memento
>>>>> mori_ for
>>>>> >> the lovers, for a nostalgic English self-image? More?
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> 58.11-15: something blocks Roger's speech, and "how does she
>>>>> know... so
>>>>> >> exactly what Roger meant to say?" (Reinforcing 56.37's "Roger
>>>>> really wants
>>>>> >> other people to know what he’s talking about. Jessica understands
>>>>> that.") A
>>>>> >> hug, melting into arousal for both, is more than a consolation
>>>>> prize for
>>>>> >> "failure to communicate" -- it *is* communication, "mind-to-mind."
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> 58.16 brings us back to the framing night of winter solstice.
>>>>> Perhaps the
>>>>> >> clinch just above was earlier the same night -- the section began
>>>>> with
>>>>> >> "pillows in front of the fire. Roger’s clothing... scattered all
>>>>> about." Or
>>>>> >> perhaps all their nights here are one, off the timeline and off the
>>>>> books.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> 58.24: "Pointsman’s... his... a bleakness whenever she meets him.
>>>>> >> Scientist-neutrality." How does that differ from Roger's commitment
>>>>> to the
>>>>> >> data and only the data about rocketfalls, which was only recently
>>>>> "cheap
>>>>> >> cynicism"...? Or is Roger's version of neutrality less creepy to her
>>>>> >> *because* it makes him uncomfortable even as he insists on it? NB he
>>>>> >> repeatedly, parodically *plays* the mad scientist in exchanges with
>>>>> her. If
>>>>> >> I didn't know that Pynchon fears and condemns science like all good
>>>>> creative
>>>>> >> souls, I'd think there's some quite interesting ambivalence being
>>>>> modeled
>>>>> >> here.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> 58.33: "And the people who might have been asleep in the empty
>>>>> houses here
>>>>> >> . .., are they dreaming of cities that shine all over with lamps at
>>>>> night,
>>>>> >> of Christmases seen again from the vantage of children and not of
>>>>> sheep
>>>>> >> huddled so vulnerable on their bare hillside, so bleached by the
>>>>> Star’s
>>>>> >> awful radiance?"
>>>>> >> Spoilers be damned, this is a sweet foretaste of the Advent evensong
>>>>> >> coming up three nights from now (p. 127)
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >
>>>>> -
>>>>> Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?listpynchon-l
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20160518/0382156a/attachment.html>