Grace again. Misc.

Fri Aug 4 09:43:25 CDT 2017

Maybe hyperbole, but given so much else he said that I have no ear for,
this rings truer to me than the rest of it. McLuhan and many others thought
so.
If not provably, precisely true, then hysterically true, so to speak.

But to your other point, how many of the millions of first books printed
were Bibles is staggering.

The printing press was invented in the Holy Roman Empire
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Roman_Empire> by the German
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany> Johannes Gutenberg
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Gutenberg> around 1440, based on
existing screw presses <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Screw_press>.
Gutenberg, a goldsmith <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldsmith> by
profession, developed a printing system, by adapting existing technologies
to printing purposes, as well as making inventions of his own. His newly
devised hand mould <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matrix_(printing)> made
possible the precise and rapid creation of metal movable type
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movable_type> in large quantities. The
printing press spread within several decades to over two hundred cities in
a dozen European countries.[3]
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Printing_press#cite_note-Febvre.2C_Lucien.3B_Martin.2C_Henri-Jean_1976_by_Anderson.2C_Benedict_1993.2C_58f.-3>
By
1500, printing presses in operation throughout Western Europe
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Europe> had already produced more
than twenty million volumes.[3]
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Printing_press#cite_note-Febvre.2C_Lucien.3B_Martin.2C_Henri-Jean_1976_by_Anderson.2C_Benedict_1993.2C_58f.-3>
In
the 16th century, with presses spreading further afield, their output rose
tenfold to an estimated 150 to 200 million copies.[3]
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Printing_press#cite_note-Febvre.2C_Lucien.3B_Martin.2C_Henri-Jean_1976_by_Anderson.2C_Benedict_1993.2C_58f.-3>
The
operation of a press became synonymous with the enterprise of printing, and
lent its name to a new branch of media, "the press
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspaper>".[4]
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Printing_press#cite_note-4>

In Renaissance Europe, the arrival of mechanical movable type printing
introduced the era of mass communication
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_communication>, which permanently
altered the structure of society. The relatively unrestricted circulation
of information and (revolutionary) ideas transcended borders, captured the
masses in the Reformation
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant_Reformation> and threatened the
power of political and religious authorities. The sharp increase in literacy
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy> broke the monopoly of the literate
elite on education and learning and bolstered the emerging middle class
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_class>.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Printing_press

On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 8:48 AM, David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hyperbole, but he did learn of the concept from the scriptures, which
> weren't available to the masses at the time.
>
> David Morris
>
>
> <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> Virus-free.
> www.avg.com
> <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
> <#m_4056862506725229979_m_2846943285198533698_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>
> On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 7:10 AM, Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I have learned from a book review that Luther said the highest form of
>> God's grace [in history] was the printing press.
>>
>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>> On Jul 31, 2017, at 6:56 AM, David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Luther's revolution was born of his concept of Grace.  Say "grace," hear
>> Luther.
>>
>> David Morris
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 2:32 AM Kai Frederik Lorentzen <
>> lorentzen at hotmail.de> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Could it be that Pynchon's understanding of Grace is Lutheran?
>>>
>>> > ... Martin Luther’s theology can be fundamentally construed as the
>>> development of his thought regarding the nature of grace, the nature of
>>> God’s favor and blessing bestowed upon undeserving human beings. The many
>>> dimensions of Luther’s biblical teaching and theological reflection have,
>>> in the background a desire to understand God’s grace most fully revealed in
>>> Jesus Christ. As such, Luther’s concepts of the righteousness of God,
>>> justification by faith, the bound will, the distinction of law and gospel,
>>> the new obedience, the “happy exchange,” and many related concepts are, at
>>> heart, attempts to describe what it is to have a God of grace.
>>> Most interpreters have rightly understood that in Luther’s view, to have
>>> a gracious God means to have a God who does not require human beings to
>>> fulfill a set of prerequisites in order to receive God’s gift in Christ or
>>> to reciprocate God’s giving in order to continue receiving Christ and his
>>> benefits. For Luther, to have a God of grace means to believe and trust
>>> that through Jesus Christ, God has already met all prerequisites and
>>> fulfilled all reciprocations. On this point, Luther found himself breaking
>>> new ground (or recovering lost ground) in the understanding of divine
>>> grace. Luther “broke” with those theological forebears who taught that
>>> divine grace was, in one way or another, partly dependent on human willing
>>> and doing. For Luther, God graciously wills and works “all in all.”
>>> Nevertheless, when Luther’s many descriptions of what it is to “have a
>>> gracious God” are analyzed, a more nuanced understanding of the
>>> relationship between the One giving the gift and the ones receiving it
>>> begins to reveal itself. For Luther, faith—that gracious means through
>>> which God graciously bestows the righteousness of Christ—creates a dynamic
>>> rather than static experience of possessing and being possessed of a God of
>>> grace ... <
>>>
>>> http://religion.oxfordre.com/view/10.1093/acrefore/978019934
>>> 0378.001.0001/acrefore-9780199340378-e-335
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Am 30.07.2017 um 13:58 schrieb Mark Kohut:
>>>
>>> In Calvinism and other religious traditions, grace gets earned--or
>>> shown-- by human free will choices.
>>>
>>> if grace is not earned or shown-- by free will human choices, then grace
>>> as Pynchon uses it, is unearned, totally unexpected (by Lew and in the
>>> text) and is somehow a function of the cosmos. Chance or otherwise. No?
>>>
>>> On Sun, Jul 30, 2017 at 7:41 AM, David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> If Free Will replaces Grace, then it is it's equal, not its opposite.
>>>>
>>>> David Morris
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, Jul 30, 2017 at 5:27 AM Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Now THAT'S an answer I did not expect---nor really know (although I
>>>>> know some of that shit from that tradition).
>>>>> Another theologian rendered into the dustbin of churchyards because
>>>>> of
>>>>> Augustine's dominance.
>>>>>
>>>>> A heretic, P's tradition. One might say a theological preterite,
>>>>> analogously speaking? As Bailey alludes, and Morris fills in:
>>>>> a kind of theological shlemiel, maybe? Profane Pelagius.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm going to suggest that as Pynchon transformed the concept of Grace
>>>>> within the religious tradition, for him
>>>>> in the fiction, it became like "the free will" of the cosmos---which
>>>>> might all be predetermined, of course, per your observation---
>>>>> when Lew experienced it unexpectedly.....when Against the Day ends....
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, Jul 29, 2017 at 5:16 PM, Paul Mackin <mackin.paul at gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In the way back, Pelagius (St Agustine's antagonist) thought we
>>>>>> didn't need Grace--that our free will was sufficient to overcome sin. So,
>>>>>> the opposite of Grace is Free Will.  Which science now says doesn't exist.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, Jul 29, 2017 at 4:03 PM, Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From the wayback (but eternal?) religious uses, the opposite might
>>>>>>> be damnation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What might it be in Pynchon's transformation of the meaning of the
>>>>>>> word?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sat, Jul 29, 2017 at 3:28 PM, Jochen Stremmel <
>>>>>>> jstremmel at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You are the native speaker, Mark, but I would say it's bullshit if
>>>>>>>> you don't provide context. What kind of grace? You have disgrace, you have
>>>>>>>> clumsiness, I'm sure you have more opposites of grace.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 2017-07-29 21:11 GMT+02:00 Erik T. Burns <eburns at gmail.com>:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I suggest "trump"
>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>>>>>> From: Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>> Sent: ‎7/‎29/‎2017 20:06
>>>>>>>>> To: pynchon -l <pynchon-l at waste.org>
>>>>>>>>> Subject: Grace again. Misc.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Gracelessness is an absence of grace, but the English language
>>>>>>>>> lacks a word for the opposite of grace.--Cass Sunstein, very
>>>>>>>>> recent essay.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20170804/8d697df9/attachment.html>