Squaring TRP's Luddite Essay with His Sloth Essay

[jody boy]

You're right. It's not just the effrontery of our humanness (including
our poor spelling, grammar, etc.) being judged by robot algorithms,
but our growing dependency on that very same process as it continues
to insinuate itself into the fabric of our daily lives- as an aid to
memory, for example. Convenience becomes necessity, and control
naturally follows.

On Sat, Apr 15, 2017 at 10:15 PM, John Bailey <sundayjb at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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