Squaring TRP's Luddite Essay with His Sloth Essay

[John Bailey]

I'll see your robot gatekeeper and raise you one: apparently the need
to check a box or whatever to prove you're not a bot is being phased
out as Google has perfected the technology to tell if you're a robot
without you actually doing anything. You arrive on a page, Google
compares your recent activity to the vast set of data it already has
on you, and decides if you're human or a bot.
It's not revealing too much about how exactly that works, but I can't
wait to hear about the post-Kafka scenario when a real human finds
themselves deemed inhuman by a network increasingly able to lock us
out of vital everyday activities.

On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 10:16 AM, jody boy <jodys.gone2 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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/?listpynchon-l
>

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