***SPAM*** Re: Re: Re: NP: Ad Coelum

[Smoke Teff]

"They broke their backs lifting Moloch to Heaven!"

On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 5:02 PM, Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com> wrote:

> Mid-life....when richness solidified as a key judgmental concept....Slow
> learner....only later did I plunge in so deeply....
>
> you're probably there already; you're smarter than I am.
>
> Go forward
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Apr 16, 2017, at 5:26 PM, Smoke Teff <smoketeff at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Right, makes sense. Maybe that's what I'm asking about...the moment when,
> as a fan/student/follower, your appreciation moves from simply
> awe/love/extreme like to more critical or even rational claims about
> parameters, etc.
>
> I remember when I was young, maybe 18, and falling in love with DFW,
> except I didn't realize I was falling in love with DFW, I thought I was
> engaged in some deep critical wrestling match, reading almost
> antagonistically, until a girlfriend said something about him being my
> favorite writer. I was shocked by this. Her reasoning was that, despite my
> not realizing it, he was basically the only thing I talked about for months
> at a time. I hadn't appreciated until then the extent to which his thinking
> totally entered, challenged, stimulated, entangled with my own.
>
> The first thing that got to me about Pynchon was the writing, the
> language, then/out of that the astonishing subversive intelligence, then
> the emotional temperature/Romantic moments, then the ability to
> multivalently zoom in and out between the extremely/microscopically human
> and the macro (taken on with a Romantic-leaning ambivalence that projected
> both deep feeling and radiant enlightenedness), eventually to include (once
> I started to appreciate) the way his books so deeply entangle with and
> include the world (and each other). The world-encompassing vision, yes.
>
> One of my teachers when I was studying fiction writing at Syracuse was
> this hoodoo novelist/prophet named Arthur Flowers. Great human. The entire
> course description for his workshop was four words: "Craft. Discipline.
> Vision. Grace." Came to Pynchon for the craft. Fell in love with the
> vision. Stayed for the grace, while still enjoying the others. And along
> the way have liked how TRP has used all four to kind of artfully
> suggest/disguise the discipline, the way he sometimes seems to woven
> anti-discipline into his ethos.
>
>
>
> On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 4:08 PM, Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> to be honest...when I was young, I had no such concept really....I wanted
>> to know the best and did not know what parameters mattered....
>>
>> On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 4:05 PM, Smoke Teff <smoketeff at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Of course. Do you think the "contains everything"ness is what you fell
>>> in love with? Was it the first thing that tipped you off about the
>>> kind/scope of brilliance you were reading?
>>>
>>> On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 6:25 AM, Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Since everything connects in Pynchon, who contains everything (and in
>>>> varying sizes, like nested infinities),
>>>> there is this re air law:
>>>>
>>>> The earliest legislation in air law was a 1784 decree of the Paris
>>>> police <https://www.britannica.com/topic/police>forbidding balloon
>>>> flights without a special permit.
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 8:52 PM, Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In international law, which I have been studying this semester,
>>>>> property ownership "upward" is not infinite.
>>>>>
>>>>> Does not include outer space, which is defined in differing, sometimes
>>>>> contentious, sometimes adjudicated ways internationally.
>>>>>
>>>>> Where the earth atmosphere ends is one major consensus by many
>>>>> countries. There is a line called, I believe, a Karman line--I could always
>>>>> look it up--creeping toward standardization. Lowest spot where satellites
>>>>> can orbit, is another.
>>>>>
>>>>> The great chain of cosmic ownership is another casualty of modernity,
>>>>> so to speak. Second thing we do is bring in the lawyers.
>>>>>
>>>>> as above, not below.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>>>
>>>>> On Apr 14, 2017, at 6:40 PM, Smoke Teff <smoketeff at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Well a broad overview makes it sound like this idea ad coelum idea
>>>>> (that property ownership extends infinitely upward and downward) starts
>>>>> creeping into western consciousness (or at least into recorded/mythologized
>>>>> discourse) around the 1200s, becomes fundamental to most people's notion of
>>>>> property law after that...
>>>>>
>>>>> Related to the discussions of humanism around here, I wonder if
>>>>> there's some relevance to this new 13-c idea that the reach of man's
>>>>> dominion is spatially infinite, at least in this one dimension...
>>>>>
>>>>> And also wondering if that's not a kind of precursor to later
>>>>> species-psychic developments Pynchon guides us toward (GR: "Pirate for a
>>>>> few seconds there, waiting to talk to Stanmore, was thinking, Danger’s
>>>>> over, Banana Breakfast is saved. But it’s only a reprieve. Isn’t it. There
>>>>> will indeed be others, each just as likely to land on top of him. No one
>>>>> either side of the front knows exactly how many more. Will we have to stop
>>>>> watching the sky?”)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> In a telling irony, or maybe paradox, it seems like the 'ad coelum'
>>>>> doctrine starts to lose favor only as it starts becoming especially legally
>>>>> relevant. It seems like this really starts after the advent of manned
>>>>> balloon flight in 1783. It also comes at the tail end of a weird period of
>>>>> a few hundred years of stalled architectural progress (at least in terms of
>>>>> verticality), in which the tallest building in the world keeps getting
>>>>> shorter as the title-holders aren't beaten by new buildings but by their
>>>>> own collapsing. But then steel-frame construction is just around the
>>>>> corner...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 5:21 PM, David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I agree that such density of old and its community is wonderful.
>>>>>> That is the goal of New Ubanism.  But towers are inevitable, unless
>>>>>> outlawed. And we have conflated residential versus business uses.  And this
>>>>>> all started with an air-rights discussion.  So, as I said before, setbacks
>>>>>> were a public good established in the 20's, and air rights are their result.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Air above property ain't free, but it can be regulated.  This is a
>>>>>> fertile topic.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> David Morris
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 4:54 PM Laura Kelber <laurakelber at gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The low, but densely-populated tenement buildings my parents grew up
>>>>>>> in (8-10 people crammed into 4-5 small rooms) necessitated a spilling out
>>>>>>> of life onto fire escapes, hallways and streets. Even in the less-dense,
>>>>>>> but poorly-wired apartment of my childhood, all of these spaces were fully
>>>>>>> utilized. It created a vibrant neighborhood, particularly in the summer.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The vertical monstrosities, often barely populated, take up space
>>>>>>> without creating community. The greenest building is a vacant building.
>>>>>>> Mass transportation and walk-to shopping are the greenest aspects of any
>>>>>>> populous city. Fortunately, those are still defining aspects of life in NYC.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Laura
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE DROID*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Small town urbanism is the not so new vogue called "New Urbanism."
>>>>>>>  It's a great model for developing or recovering towns and cities up to a
>>>>>>> point, unless one wants to limit vertical growth as in DC, which has no
>>>>>>> skyscrapers so as to not compete with the Capital or White House, a
>>>>>>> questionable goal.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But denser development is inevitable for less regulated hot cities,
>>>>>>> and it should be noted that denser cities are inherently more green.  So
>>>>>>> "lovely" urban row houses is an ideal that is akin to a suburban ranch
>>>>>>> house.  Nice in a very dense city if you are very rich.  And density is a
>>>>>>> good goal.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> David Morris
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 1:56 PM Laura Kelber <laurakelber at gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Some of the loveliest blocks in the city are those with row-houses,
>>>>>>>> brownstones, row-houses and otherwise, residential or commercial of uniform
>>>>>>>> height. I'd take an entire city of such blocks (though zoning - which has
>>>>>>>> steadily weakened, due to the real estate lobby - prevents this). The
>>>>>>>> developers who buy air rights have anything but aesthetics in mind. It's
>>>>>>>> strictly bang-for-buck, as they erect sky-scraping phalli that are often
>>>>>>>> mostly-unoccupied investment properties, or, if occupied, renege on their
>>>>>>>> affordable housing obligations, and/or try to keep the luxury investors
>>>>>>>> happy with poor doors, etc.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What I hate most about these luxury high-rises is that they're
>>>>>>>> designed with high maintenance costs in mind. So the ability to re-purpose
>>>>>>>> these buildings to lower-income housing, should the investment bubble
>>>>>>>> burst, is virtually zilch. Ditto for the high-rise office buildings, whose
>>>>>>>> developers seem extremely unaware of the growing trend towards
>>>>>>>> telecommuting from one's favorite wifi spot.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> LK
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 2:18 PM, Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> FREE THE AIR SPACE!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Apr 14, 2017, at 11:11 AM, Laura Kelber <laurakelber at gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The concept of air rights in NYC - that a short building can sell
>>>>>>>>> it's "air space" to a larger building that wants to build higher than it
>>>>>>>>> would be allowed to - strikes me as illogical and larcenous. All hail the
>>>>>>>>> real estate developers!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> http://www.airrightsny.com/?m=1
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Laura
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE DROID*
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Smoke Teff <smoketeff at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hey y’all,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I’m working on an essay right now that deals a little with
>>>>>>>>> questions of property law, specifically this ad coelum doctrine (idea that
>>>>>>>>> land ownership extends infinitely upward and downward), set against the
>>>>>>>>> larger notion of the human’s relationship to the sky, the politics of
>>>>>>>>> public space on an airplane, some other things…
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If any of you have any particularly interesting/relevant
>>>>>>>>> information or thoughts to send my way, I’d be interested. Especially
>>>>>>>>> things that might shed some light on the extent to which this was actually
>>>>>>>>> a new idea whenever it first gets supposedly uttered (Wikipedia says some
>>>>>>>>> people credit a 13th century Roman scholar named Accursus), the
>>>>>>>>> extent to which it represents an evolution in a living person’s public
>>>>>>>>> understanding of property ownership/rights at the time, the details around
>>>>>>>>> its becoming understood embraced versus becoming officially codified in
>>>>>>>>> rule of law, maybe even the evolution of how a human thinks about such
>>>>>>>>> things like the sky, the ground, etc... (you might get the sense here I’m
>>>>>>>>> trying to get a sense of the human’s sense of frontiers, the way the human
>>>>>>>>> first *sees *a space and sees it as colonizable/ownable…)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> One thing I’m trying to understand is the spirit and political
>>>>>>>>> context in which this first makes its way into the public’s imagination,
>>>>>>>>> perhaps maybe wondering how it might be understood against/in relation to
>>>>>>>>> the Renaissance, what currents of change might run through them both and
>>>>>>>>> into—eventually—modernism, etc.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Is there something kind of populist about this? At least populist
>>>>>>>>> relative to whoever was allowed to own land… Or if not populist then does
>>>>>>>>> it indicate broader humanistic trends? Or is it strictly a legalistic
>>>>>>>>> framework for solving obvious neighbor disputes?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Bonus points if anyone has anything particularly interesting or
>>>>>>>>> salient to do with the mile high club, or aviatory sex in general.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks and lots of love.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20170421/707734be/attachment.html>