Squaring TRP's Luddite Essay with His Sloth Essay

[David Morris]

They won't be without human monitors for a LONG time, because slight
failure is likely fatal.

David Morris

On Sat, Apr 15, 2017 at 9:18 AM Paul Mackin <mackin.paul at gmail.com> wrote:

> Meanwhile, along come self driving cars.
>
> On Sat, Apr 15, 2017 at 8:59 AM, David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 1. Organization
>> 2. Knowledge
>> 3. Leadership
>> 4. Vision
>> 5. Skill
>> 6. Etc.
>> On Sat, Apr 15, 2017 at 7:28 AM Joseph Tracy <brook7 at sover.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Seems like all these Uber workers need to do is pool enough money to
>>> hire a good code writer and make their own online cab service where they
>>> get a bigger slice o the pie. What would stop that?
>>> > On Apr 14, 2017, at 7:50 PM, John Bailey <sundayjb at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Sorry, for context: that link seems pertinent as the 'robot army'
>>> > that's long been predicted is now looking more like an invisible army
>>> > of algorithms, digital commerce, Internet of Things, self-service
>>> > checkouts etc.
>>> > And then there's the astonishing success of the 'gig economy' (do they
>>> > call it the 'sharing economy' in the US or is that just here?). Every
>>> > left-leaning progressive liberal I know uses Uber, even though Uber is
>>> > a hypercapitalist corporation that pays no tax in Australia, takes a
>>> > huge cut of driver's earnings in exchange for no insurance, no
>>> > maintenance fees, no legal representation, no transparency etc. But
>>> > because there's a rhetoric of 'sharing' and folksy cottage industry
>>> > fun and a slick, frictionless app, people think it's a more socially
>>> > positive choice than the heavily regulated and, let's face it, largely
>>> > immigrant-based taxi industry.
>>> > You don't need to automate an industry if you can get workers to act
>>> > like robots and pay them about the same. See also: 'content creation'.
>>> >
>>> > On Sat, Apr 15, 2017 at 9:41 AM, John Bailey <sundayjb at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> >> This review of an Amazon bricks-and-mortar bookstore is a very fun
>>> >> read. It strikes me as the Stepford Wife of bookstores:
>>> >>
>>> http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/ct-amazon-store-chicago-rev-ent-0403-20170401-column.html
>>> >>
>>> >> 'what human being-based company would install a Kindle Reader in a
>>> >> book aisle with this encouragement: "Explore books in this aisle on
>>> >> the Kindle Reader"?'
>>> >>
>>> >> On Sat, Apr 15, 2017 at 9:15 AM, Smoke Teff <smoketeff at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> >>> I'm reading about the Great Railroad Strike in 1877, in which workers
>>> >>> objecting to (repeatedly) lowered wages not only strike but also
>>> destroy a
>>> >>> bunch of railroad equipment.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Does destruction of the means of production (I guess this'd include
>>> machines
>>> >>> in an industrial setting/time) seem like an inevitability to most
>>> >>> post-industrial labor unrest?
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Bartleby (talked about in the Sloth essay) is an increasingly good
>>> link
>>> >>> here...in a capitalistic setting in which one's brain and attention
>>> (and
>>> >>> even morale//complicity) are such integral parts of the means of
>>> prod,
>>> >>> destruction of the mind (through acedia, through despair) shares a
>>> direct
>>> >>> ancestry with Luddite destructiveness?
>>> >>>
>>> >>> (Some bullshitting here, if destroying the means or at least factors
>>> of
>>> >>> production is one of the ways labor tends to resist ownership/'s
>>> >>> exploitation, then the increasing invisibility and interiorization
>>> of the
>>> >>> means of production--an increasingly brain-powered market, one in
>>> which
>>> >>> ownership doesn't know how to distinguish between raw materials and
>>> >>> labor/human attention, the factory goes inside the head--is maybe
>>> one of the
>>> >>> ways the spirit of capitalism stays elusive, shapeshifty,
>>> fundamentally
>>> >>> toxic to the human. Not all laborers have physical looms to smash,
>>> factories
>>> >>> to raze. The stuff they feel compelled to tear down is inside them.
>>> Scary
>>> >>> shit.)
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 5:24 PM, ish mailian <ishmailian at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Snow is a useful lever for P's thesis in the Luddite essay.
>>> >>>> Challenging Snow and defining Luddite, like defining Sloth in the
>>> >>>> Sloth essay is nearly boilerplate. The essays are pure Pynchon, so
>>> >>>> they are about him and his talent and his work. Is it OK to be a
>>> >>>> writer, to write the kind of fiction Pynchon writes? Or is it a sin?
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> And that one Talent, which is death to hide,
>>> >>>> Lodg'd with me useless, though my Soul more bent
>>> >>>> To serve therewith my Maker, and present
>>> >>>> My true account, lest he, returning, chide
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 4:05 PM, Joseph Tracy <brook7 at sover.net>
>>> wrote:
>>> >>>>> I Agree that sensible clarity is imperfect as a description of
>>> anything
>>> >>>>> P and probably also of what Monte did. But I think his (MD’s)
>>> points are
>>> >>>>> clearly derived from the text, which is what I meant.  What P does
>>> do rather
>>> >>>>> solidly is challenge the Snow essay and the automatic derogatory
>>> tone of the
>>> >>>>> the word Luddite. Beyond that he makes us think about the roles of
>>> science
>>> >>>>> and the humanities with a delightful irreverence.
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> As to the the displacement of human labor by robots, what we do
>>> know is
>>> >>>>> that the wealth and political power of the owners has created a new
>>> >>>>> aristocracy, and a divide that is deep and terrible . That robots
>>> have
>>> >>>>> deepened that divide and will continue to deepen that divide seems
>>> >>>>> inevitable without a socialist revolution.
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>> On Apr 14, 2017, at 9:17 AM, ish mailian <ishmailian at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> One things for certain, the essays don't offer sensible clarity,
>>> or
>>> >>>>>> certainty, or anything for sure. Pynchon doesn't do well in the
>>> world
>>> >>>>>> of take-away talking points and bottom lines. The rabbits hole the
>>> >>>>>> Luddite and Sloth essays fall into are paradoxically specific
>>> about
>>> >>>>>> Modernism & Technology (yes, I've gone ahead and used the Capital
>>> T)
>>> >>>>>> and the Faustian American Tragedy of Development (Berman,  Chapter
>>> >>>>>> One), about the Bomb, and ambiguous, even ambivalent about the
>>> Comic
>>> >>>>>> and Romantic Marxian contradictions of capitalism (Berman Chapter
>>> >>>>>> Two). We fall with Alice and meet a White Rabbit with a copy of
>>> Rilke
>>> >>>>>> who, as a bureaucrat is pitiful, but as myth is terrible and
>>> beautiful
>>> >>>>>> and in Love with Death.
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> RICHARD LOCKE, in a Review, nailed this. There are advantages to
>>> >>>>>> living when the wind that the answer is blowing in is all around
>>> you.
>>> >>>>>> I don't take solace in sensible clarity, but to each a peach.
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 11:15 PM, Joseph Tracy <brook7 at sover.net>
>>> >>>>>> wrote:
>>> >>>>>>> Reading through this thread.
>>> >>>>>>> So far I particularly like the sensible clarity Monte brings to
>>> the
>>> >>>>>>> essay and the intersting tangent Ish produces.  In my mind
>>> Pynchon is not
>>> >>>>>>> talking about the specific technology but the change in status
>>> and power
>>> >>>>>>> structures and more deeply the change in  the sense of identity
>>> and self
>>> >>>>>>> brought by the paradigm that defines 2 primary categories:
>>> owner capitalist
>>> >>>>>>> ( successful businessman) and worker/replaceable part .
>>> >>>>>>> While Snow is talking about the artist/tthinker as held back (
>>> from
>>> >>>>>>> PROGRESS) by lack of scientific knowledge,  Pynchon,
>>> scientificly literate,
>>> >>>>>>> is seeing  a resistance to an imposed social order that offers
>>> not so much
>>> >>>>>>> progess as the legitimately questionable status of parts of a
>>> machine, and
>>> >>>>>>> celebrating the spirit of the "badass”  who resists that
>>> assigned status and
>>> >>>>>>> insists that a better bargain is possible for those who refuse
>>> to be owned
>>> >>>>>>> and operated.
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>> I could not help, in reading the article ish posts, feeling that
>>> there
>>> >>>>>>> are quite a few who resist sales pitches, and that when you have
>>> the habit
>>> >>>>>>> of resistance, the algorithms are particularly formulaic and
>>> easy to resist.
>>> >>>>>>> But they obviously  work enough to be very lucrative science and
>>> challenge
>>> >>>>>>> worn out ideas about decision making.   Snow looks for science
>>> education to
>>> >>>>>>> free men from Luddism, but what frees them from the unintended
>>> consequences
>>> >>>>>>> of selling shit as science?
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>> As to convergences, so far I have seen no examples of AI, just
>>> faster
>>> >>>>>>> and more multimedia electronic communication and computation.
>>> Robotics
>>> >>>>>>> seems bent toward a kind of weaponized capital with little
>>> restraint on
>>> >>>>>>> where they get pointed and huge investment in genetics has not
>>> turned up
>>> >>>>>>> nearly what was expected in usable return on investment.   The
>>> bombs
>>> >>>>>>> continue to fall, the factories are still mostly pretty
>>> miserable. Does
>>> >>>>>>> anyone win this Snow/Pynchon argument?
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>> I admit I was a bit lazy ( a kind of personal experiment in
>>> acedia)and
>>> >>>>>>> didn’t re read either P essay.
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>> On Apr 13, 2017, at 6:15 AM, ish mailian <ishmailian at gmail.com>
>>> >>>>>>>> wrote:
>>> >>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>> from NYRB  APRIL 20, 2017 ISSUE
>>> >>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>> Invisible Manipulators of Your Mind
>>> >>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>> Tamsin Shaw
>>> >>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>> The Undoing Project: A Friendship That Changed Our Minds
>>> >>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>> We are living in an age in which the behavioral sciences have
>>> become
>>> >>>>>>>> inescapable. The findings of social psychology and behavioral
>>> >>>>>>>> economics are being employed to determine the news we read, the
>>> >>>>>>>> products we buy, the cultural and intellectual spheres we
>>> inhabit,
>>> >>>>>>>> and
>>> >>>>>>>> the human networks, online and in real life, of which we are a
>>> part.
>>> >>>>>>>> Aspects of human societies that were formerly guided by habit
>>> and
>>> >>>>>>>> tradition, or spontaneity and whim, are now increasingly the
>>> intended
>>> >>>>>>>> or unintended consequences of decisions made on the basis of
>>> >>>>>>>> scientific theories of the human mind and human well-being.
>>> >>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>
>>> http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2017/04/20/kahneman-tversky-invisible-mind-manipulators/
>>> >>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>> On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 10:45 AM, Paul Mackin <
>>> mackin.paul at gmail.com>
>>> >>>>>>>> wrote:
>>> >>>>>>>>> Things haven't been so heated about automation taking away jobs
>>> >>>>>>>>> since the
>>> >>>>>>>>> '60s.
>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>> Rather than those technologies based on physical science, the
>>> ones
>>> >>>>>>>>> based on
>>> >>>>>>>>> the social science are the sine qua non.
>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>> Economies of scale for Ludd;
>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>> The behavioral science of persuasion for us moderns.
>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>> On Sun, Apr 9, 2017 at 6:18 PM, John Bailey <
>>> sundayjb at gmail.com>
>>> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>> Wot Monte sed.
>>> >>>>>>>>>> There's also been a massive resurgence of "Robots are Coming
>>> to
>>> >>>>>>>>>> Take Your
>>> >>>>>>>>>> Jobs" stories in the media of late. Same thing - displaces the
>>> >>>>>>>>>> responsibility away from the businesses preferring automation
>>> and
>>> >>>>>>>>>> the
>>> >>>>>>>>>> minimisation of human labor costs onto a mythic army of
>>> androids
>>> >>>>>>>>>> we've been
>>> >>>>>>>>>> primed to imagine by fiction and film. It's the same as
>>> explaining
>>> >>>>>>>>>> offshore
>>> >>>>>>>>>> outsourcing as "Bangladeshis are Coming to Take Your Job."
>>> >>>>>>>>>> I think classifying Pynchon as a Systems Novelist makes even
>>> more
>>> >>>>>>>>>> sense
>>> >>>>>>>>>> when you read his essays, rather than the fiction.
>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 12:44 AM, Monte Davis
>>> >>>>>>>>>> <montedavis49 at gmail.com>
>>> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I don't resist at all Pynchon's kinship/affinity for the
>>> Luddites
>>> >>>>>>>>>>> --
>>> >>>>>>>>>>> especially for  Ned Ludd himself as Badass folk hero, which
>>> is his
>>> >>>>>>>>>>> route
>>> >>>>>>>>>>> into the subject. But Pynchon reminds us four times in the
>>> essay
>>> >>>>>>>>>>> that their
>>> >>>>>>>>>>> struggle was not against new machinery (it had been in their
>>> homes
>>> >>>>>>>>>>> and
>>> >>>>>>>>>>> workshops for generations), but against the Birmingham and
>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Manchester
>>> >>>>>>>>>>> "cotton capitalists" who could put together hundreds of those
>>> >>>>>>>>>>> machines and
>>> >>>>>>>>>>> water or steam power under one roof. Those economies of
>>> scale,
>>> >>>>>>>>>>> that newly
>>> >>>>>>>>>>> enlarged bargaining power, swept away a 150-year-old,
>>> >>>>>>>>>>> decentralized
>>> >>>>>>>>>>> "letting-out" system of craft textile production, tilting the
>>> >>>>>>>>>>> playing field
>>> >>>>>>>>>>> so that workers who had been independent contractors had no
>>> choice
>>> >>>>>>>>>>> but to
>>> >>>>>>>>>>> become employees.
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Historians have known this all along, but the broad-brush pop
>>> >>>>>>>>>>> version
>>> >>>>>>>>>>> (which is what "Luddite" came to mean over time, and what
>>> C.P.
>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Snow invoked)
>>> >>>>>>>>>>> conflates the *scale and economic organization* of a
>>> technology
>>> >>>>>>>>>>> with the
>>> >>>>>>>>>>> technology itself. Some think that's a quibble; I don't,
>>> because I
>>> >>>>>>>>>>> see a lot
>>> >>>>>>>>>>> of very deliberate stitching back and forth across that
>>> >>>>>>>>>>> distinction
>>> >>>>>>>>>>> throughout Pynchon's work.
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>> ...And because every day I read heated arguments -- say,
>>> about Big
>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Data
>>> >>>>>>>>>>> and social media and online privacy and NSA/Google/Facebook
>>> --
>>> >>>>>>>>>>> which get
>>> >>>>>>>>>>> hopelessly confused as people slide back and forth between
>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 'technology is
>>> >>>>>>>>>>> doing this to us' and 'we're allowing/paying specific
>>> >>>>>>>>>>> organizations with
>>> >>>>>>>>>>> specific agendas to do this to us.'
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Apr 8, 2017 at 5:49 PM, Smoke Teff <
>>> smoketeff at gmail.com>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for reposting. Yeah Pynchon obviously goes out of
>>> his way
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> demonstrate (or even generate) a more complicated idea of
>>> Luddism
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> than
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> simply anti-tech.
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Do you resist the idea that Pynchon demonstrates some kind
>>> of
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> affinity
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> for or even kinship with Luddism as you understand him to
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> understand it?
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> So to use some of your phrasing, let's replace Luddite
>>> (adj.)
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> "[anti] concentrated capital and market power" in the end
>>> of the
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> sloth
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> essay...
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> "Perhaps the future of Sloth will lie in sinning against
>>> what now
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> seems
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> increasingly to define us -- technology. Persisting in
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> [ANTI-CONCENTRATED-CAPITAL-AND-MARKET-POWER] sorrow, despite
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> technology's
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> good intentions, there we'll sit with our heads in virtual
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> reality, glumly
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> refusing to be absorbed in its idle, disposable fantasies,
>>> even
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> those about
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> superheroes of Sloth back in Sloth's good old days, full of
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> leisurely but
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> lethal misadventures with the ruthless villains of the
>>> Acedia
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Squad."
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> So then Pynchon's--and maybe history's--more informed sense
>>> of
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> what
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Luddite means/meant eventually catches up with the popular
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> anti-technology
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> sense anyway, at least so long as we are in the age of
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> technology, resisting
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> which looks for now an awful lot like resisting concentrated
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> capital and
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> market power?
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Apr 8, 2017 at 3:42 PM, Monte Davis
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> <montedavis49 at gmail.com>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Nothing to contribute beyond another pitch for my own
>>> reading --
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> however we use the label now, the historical Luddites
>>> mobilized
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> *not*
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> against technology -- the same that they and their
>>> grandparents
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> used
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> routinely -- but against concentrated capital and market
>>> power.
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> And thjat
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Pynchon knows that. As I wrote 9/2015:
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> **
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Re Christy Burns' "Postmodern Historiography" (and looking
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> forward to
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Mason's recollections of weavers vs. clothiers in the
>>> Golden
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Valley, 207
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> passim)
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Once again, in Burns' note 2, we see the Luddites'
>>> activities
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> described
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> as "the vehement workers' rebellion against the advance of
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> machinery..."
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> along with a reference to David Cowart, who (in TP and the
>>> Dark
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Passages of
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> History) describes Pynchon's 1984 essay "Is It O.K. to be a
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Luddite?" as "a
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> meditation on distrust of technology."
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> And once again I wonder why, if that's really what the
>>> essay
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> says the
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Luddites were about in 1811-1816, Pynchon would clutter its
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> exposition with
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> distractions such as
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> "...much of the machinery that steam was coming to drive
>>> had
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> already
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> long been in place, having in fact been driven by water
>>> power
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> since the
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Middle Ages..."
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> "whenever a stocking-frame was found sabotaged - this had
>>> been
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> going
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> on, sez the Encyclopedia Britannica, since about 1710..."
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> "… the target even of the original assault [Ned Lud's] of
>>> 1779,
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> like
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> many machines of the Industrial Revolution, was not a new
>>> piece
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> technology. The stocking-frame had been around since
>>> 1589...
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> [and] continued
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> to be the only mechanical means of knitting for hundreds of
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> years... And Ned
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Lud's anger was not directed at the machines, not exactly."
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> "The knitting machines which provoked the first Luddite
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> disturbances
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> had been putting people out of work for well over two
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> centuries."
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Golly, those Luddites must have been awfully stupid not to
>>> have
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> noticed
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> "the advance of machinery" for so long. Or maybe the
>>> Luddites'
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> activities
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> were not what Burns, Cowart, C.P. Snow, and so many others
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> project upon
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> them, but exactly what Pynchon calls them:
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> "They also saw the machines coming more and more to be the
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> property of
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> men who did not work, only owned and hired... [they were]
>>> trade
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> unionists
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> ahead of their time... It was open-eyed class war."
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> ---
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> IOW, the Luddite disturbances were actually about a
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> concentration of
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> capital arising from changing markets and business models:
>>> where
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> previously
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> a lot of small local clothiers had dealt with a few weavers
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> each, now a few
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> large clothiers -- not neighbors, but increasingly in
>>> far-off
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> cities -- had
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> much more concentrated power over (and systematically
>>> lowered
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> the rates of)
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> all the weavers in a district. The Luddites smashed
>>> machinery
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> *not* because
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> it was new, *not* because it was in and of itself putting
>>> them
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> out of work,
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> but because it was what they could reach of the bosses'
>>> assets.
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I recognize that it's much too late to change the
>>> consensus that
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> "Luddite = anti-technology," but given that TRP was at
>>> pains to
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> show that he
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> *did* understand what the Luddites were about, it annoys
>>> me to
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> see him --
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> and sloppy readings of that essay -- enlisted in the
>>> general
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> misunderstanding.
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/what-the-luddites-really-fought-against-264412/
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Apr 8, 2017 at 3:38 PM, Smoke Teff <
>>> smoketeff at gmail.com>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Typed my way through a brief attempt to understand or at
>>> least
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> meditate on these two essays in tandem upon a revisit of
>>> them
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> yesterday...
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe not worth your time, but if anybody's interested in
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> reacting or
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> offering any insight, I imagine it'll be worth mine. The
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> maybe-finite
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> resource of my time, that is.
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Luddite essay here:
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> http://www.nytimes.com/books/97/05/18/reviews/pynchon-luddite.html
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sloth here:
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> http://www.nytimes.com/books/97/05/18/reviews/pynchon-sloth.html
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Luddite essay is '84. Sloth '93.
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> End of the Luddite essay:
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> If our world survives, the next great challenge to watch
>>> out
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> for will
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> come - you heard it here first - when the curves of
>>> research
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and development
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> in artificial intelligence, molecular biology and
>>> robotics all
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> converge.
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oboy. It will be amazing and unpredictable, and even the
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> biggest of brass,
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> let us devoutly hope, are going to be caught flat-footed.
>>> It is
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> certainly
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> something for all good Luddites to look forward to if, God
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> willing, we
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> should live so long. Meantime, as Americans, we can take
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> comfort, however
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> minimal and cold, from Lord Byron's mischievously
>>> improvised
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> song, in which
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> he, like other observers of the time, saw clear
>>> identification
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> between the
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> first Luddites and our own revolutionary origins. It
>>> begins:
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> As the Liberty lads o'er the sea
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bought their freedom, and cheaply, with blood,
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> So we, boys, we
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Will die fighting, or live free,
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> And down with all kings but King Ludd!
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The last two paragraphs of the Sloth essay:
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Unless the state of our souls becomes once more a subject
>>> of
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> serious
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> concern, there is little question that Sloth will
>>> continue to
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> evolve away
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> from its origins in the long-ago age of faith and
>>> miracle, when
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> daily life
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> really was the Holy Ghost visibly at work and time was a
>>> story,
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> with a
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> beginning, middle and end. Belief was intense, engagement
>>> deep
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and fatal.
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Christian God was near. Felt. Sloth -- defiant sorrow
>>> in
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the face of
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> God's good intentions -- was a deadly sin.
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps the future of Sloth will lie in sinning against
>>> what
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> now seems
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> increasingly to define us -- technology. Persisting in
>>> Luddite
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> sorrow,
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> despite technology's good intentions, there we'll sit
>>> with our
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> heads in
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> virtual reality, glumly refusing to be absorbed in its
>>> idle,
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> disposable
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> fantasies, even those about superheroes of Sloth back in
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sloth's good old
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> days, full of leisurely but lethal misadventures with the
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ruthless villains
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the Acedia Squad.
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Does this seem like an evolution in his thinking from the
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Luddite
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> essay?
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> He's so--even in his nonfic--exploratory, proceeding by a
>>> kind
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> thinking-at-speed logic, but also ambulatory, wandering,
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> without apparent
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> destination, toying with different ideas, tones...
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> So while I'm both (for better or worse, not really
>>> purposely
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> but
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> inevitably) always studying Pynchon for lessons in how to
>>> live
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and think,
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm also always hesitant to decisively identify too much
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> explicit opinion or
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ideology.
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> But I usually come out of the Luddite essay--or at least
>>> look
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> back on
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> it--feeling like he's kind of pro-Luddism, or at least
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> entangling Luddism
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> with certain lineages and inclinations that he might
>>> either
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> note with some
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> affection or even identify with. Basically it feels like
>>> it has
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> some note of
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> endorsement to it.
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The sloth essay I usually look back on with the idea that
>>> he's
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> offering a kind of defense/endorsement of sloth, a kind of
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> passive
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> resistance to capitalistic/only-forward time, to the
>>> treatment
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of time as a
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> finite and exploitable resource. But actually his movement
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> through it is
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> complicated. It is sometimes the way I remember it. But
>>> then
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> it's also other
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> things. He initially frames it as one of Aquinas's seven
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> deadlies. Aquinas
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> calls it acedia. Pynchon seems to formulate his idea of it
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> primarily from
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> this vantage point.
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here are the different mentions of acedia in the essay.
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) "Acedia" in Latin means sorrow, deliberately
>>> self-directed,
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> turned
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> away from God, a loss of spiritual determination that then
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> feeds back on in
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to the process, soon enough producing what are currently
>>> known
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> as guilt and
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> depression, eventually pushing us to where we will do
>>> anything,
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the way
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of venial sin and bad judgment, to avoid the discomfort.
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) Between Franklin's hectic aphorist, Poor Richard, and
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Melville's
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> doomed scrivener, Bartleby, lies about a century of early
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> America,
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> consolidating itself as a Christian capitalist state,
>>> even as
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> acedia was in
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the last stages of its shift over from a spiritual to a
>>> secular
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> condition.
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3) BY the time of "Bartleby the Scrivener: A Story of
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wall-Street"
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (1853), acedia had lost the last of its religious
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> reverberations and was now
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> an offense against the economy. Right in the heart of
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> robber-baron
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> capitalism, the title character develops what proves to be
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> terminal acedia.
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4) In this century we have come to think of Sloth as
>>> primarily
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> political, a failure of public will allowing the
>>> introduction
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of evil
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> policies and the rise of evil regimes, the worldwide
>>> fascist
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ascendancy of
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the 1920's and 30's being perhaps Sloth's finest hour,
>>> though
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Vietnam
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> era and the Reagan-Bush years are not far behind. Fiction
>>> and
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> nonfiction
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> alike are full of characters who fail to do what they
>>> should
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> because of the
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> effort involved. How can we not recognize our world?
>>> Occasions
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> for choosing
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> good present themselves in public and private for us
>>> every day,
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and we pass
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> them by. Acedia is the vernacular of everyday moral life.
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Though it has
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> never lost its deepest notes of mortal anxiety, it never
>>> gets
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> as painful as
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> outright despair, or as real, for it is despair bought at
>>> a
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> discount price,
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> a deliberate turning against faith in anything because of
>>> the
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> inconvenience
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> faith presents to the pursuit of quotidian lusts, angers
>>> and
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the rest.
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 5) Is Sloth once more about to be, somehow, transcended?
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Another
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> possibility of course is that we have not passed beyond
>>> acedia
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> at all, but
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that it has only retreated from its long-familiar venue,
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> television, and is
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> seeking other, more shadowy environments -- who knows?
>>> computer
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> games, cult
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> religions, obscure trading floors in faraway cities --
>>> ready to
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> pop up again
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> in some new form to offer us cosmic despair on the cheap.
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> And 6) happens in the last paragraph I pasted above. I
>>> guess
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> looking
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> at it now it doesn't necessarily seem like TRP's really
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> abandoning or
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> shifting his identification with/endorsement of/sympathy
>>> for
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Luddism. Maybe
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> he's even saying, as we're increasingly defined by
>>> technology,
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Luddism
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> becomes a more logical, potent, holy, common(?),
>>> effective(??)
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> kind of sloth
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> than ever before.
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Really maybe he's saying sloth was once--in the Age of
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Miracles--an
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> inhibition to a vividly felt/engaged experience of the
>>> world,
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> but now, in a
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> less holy world, sloth isn't despairingly turning away
>>> from the
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> holy but
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> from the unholy/unholiness.
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> So by a weird kind of divergent and antagonstic evolution,
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> sloth gets
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> decoupled from its "acedia" origins and becomes a
>>> resistance to
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> some old
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ghost-half of itself. Despair against despair. A face and
>>> its
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> mirror image
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> turning away from each other.
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> But was it that original coupling of sloth and acedia
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> itself--the
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> turning away from the holy--that led out of the Age of
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Miracles? Or maybe as
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Aquinas would have it, it was 1/7 of the story.
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you see much movement in TRP's thinking over the 9-yr
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> publication
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> gap between these two things?
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>> -
>>> >>>>>>>> Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>> -
>>> >>>>>>> Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?listpynchon-l
>>> >>>>>> -
>>> >>>>>> Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> -
>>> >>>>> 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/?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/20170415/40ad8f53/attachment.html>