Squaring TRP's Luddite Essay with His Sloth Essay

[jody boy]

I had an interesting experience recently in that regard. I tend to use
the tor browser for most internet rambles, to avoid creating too much
of an online profile/target for whomever, and I went to Google Scholar
to research a topic. The website reacted to my tor disguised presence
by making me prove that I was "not a robot." It was a somewhat tedious
exercise, but I was finally granted "you are not a robot" status, and
allowed me to proceed. It occurred to me, then, that whatever it was
that had decided that I was a humanoid and allowed me access was most
certainly not human. I come from a long line of gatekeepers stretching
back to England, at least as far back as Shakespeare's era, and we
have been automated out as a profession for awhile, but proof of
animacy as a pass? Well, I guess it takes one to know one- Turing
would have been amused.

On Sat, Apr 15, 2017 at 1:12 PM, David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
>>
>>
>

-
Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l