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

[ish mailian]

In more than one of his essays P talks of paradox.

Pynchon wrote an Introduction to 1984. Erich Fromm wrote an Afterword.
In that famous Afterword Fromm addresses the paradox of scientific progress.

Orwell is not alone in this endeavor. Two other writers, the Russian
Zamyatin in his book We, and Aldous Huxley in his Brave New World,
have expressed the mood of the present, and a warning for the future,
in ways very similar to Orwell's. This new trilogy of what may be
called the "negative utopias" of the middle of the twentieth century
is the coutnerpoint to the trilogy of the positive utopias mentioned
before, written in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.2 The
negative utopias express the mood of powerlessness and hopelessness of
modern man just as the early utopias expressed the mood of
self-confidence and hope of post-medieval man. There could be nothing
more paradoxical in historical terms than this change: man, at the
beggining of the industrial age, when in reality he did not posses the
means for a world in which the table was set for all who wanted to
eat, when he lived in a world in which there were economic reasons for
slavery, war, and exploitation, in which man only sensed the
possibilities of his new science and of its application to technique
and to production - nevertheless man at the beginning of modern
development was full of hope. Four hundred year later, when all these
hopes are realizable, when man can produce enough for everybody, when
war has become unnecessary because technical progress can give any
country more wealth than can territorial conquest, when this globe is
in the process of becoming as unified as a continent was four hundred
years ago, at the very moment when man is on the verge of realizing
his hope, he begins to lose it. It is the essential point of all the
three negative utopias not only to describe the future toward which we
are moving, but also to explain the historical paradox.

http://webpages.charter.net/sn9/literature/1984_afterward.html

On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 2:34 AM, Kai Frederik Lorentzen
<lorentzen at hotmail.de> wrote:
>
> On 18.05.2016 13:26, Mark Kohut 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.
>
>
> But can Wittgenstein's sentence, and his (early) philosophy in general, be
> called "positivistic"? I don't think so. Positivists don't consider "the
> mystical" to be a reality. And even the famous opening sentence has, in the
> German original, a religious dimension. "Die Welt ist alles, was der Fall
> ist" does mean "The world is everything which is the case", but "der Fall"
> (the case) bears also, Taubes and Sloterdijk have hinted at this,
> connotation of the Fall of Man (in German: "Sündenfall"). As Michael
> Mandelartz puts it: "The first sentence of the Tractatus states as the
> condition of contemporary philosophizing the finiteness after the Fall of
> Man."
>
>
> https://books.google.de/books?id=u2fpnX9a6kAC&pg=PA127&lpg=PA127&dq=wittgenstein+die+welt+ist+alles+was+der+fall+ist+s%C3%BCndenfall+mystik&source=bl&ots=A2_wqCecL8&sig=PQgbMw7T9GCi0AYFeYurrXJVW7A&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjh1cyotuXMAhXGB8AKHRljB3cQ6AEIOjAD#v=onepage&q=wittgenstein%20die%20welt%20ist%20alles%20was%20der%20fall%20ist%20s%C3%BCndenfall%20mystik&f=false
>
>
>
> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
-
Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l