Re: AtD translation: Kit gazed at, or perhaps into, the tie’s ultra-modern design

[Mark Kohut]

Ends on the word 'entertaining' which casts meaning of course...

Also. all of us now remember the wild ties in *Inherent Vice, *right?

On Sat, Aug 7, 2021 at 3:23 PM Joseph Tracy <brook7 at sover.net> wrote:

> To my thought the most obvious difference is that 'gaze at' implies a
> surface, like the surface arrangement of shapes colors on the tie material
> perceived fundamentally as a plane, and 'gaze into' implies perceiving the
> painting  as a 3 dimensional space, a world. This shift in perception is
> fairly common. There are no actual planes, points or lines, they are
> imaginary dimensional shifts and mathematical models yet one cannot imagine
> sight without planes. Our relation to these dimensional shifts of
> perception are a major concern of the novel. Later we look into gelatin
> silver prints via Merle and friend’s special process and the space becomes
> 4 dimensional to include time.
>    There may be an implication in this that Einstein’s spacetime or
> something with even more dimensions is the only knowable and realistic
> understanding and all gazes ‘at’ are a narrowed abstraction, a mathematical
> trick, a limited view, the position without velocity or direction, the
> limits of what we can see or perceive due to the relativity implied in
> measurement.
>
> > On Aug 6, 2021, at 10:40 PM, Mike Jing <gravitys.rainbow.cn at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > P623.35-624.6   . . . and a vivid necktie in fuchsia, heliotrope, and
> duck
> > green, a gift from one of the patients, as the Doc presently explained
> in a
> > voice hoarse from too much cigarette-smoking, “Hand-painted, as therapy,
> to
> > express, though regrettably not control, certain recurring impulses of a
> > homicidal nature.”
> >       Kit gazed at, or perhaps into, the tie’s ultra-modern design, in
> > which its disturbed artist had failed to include much of anything
> > encountered in the natural world—yet, who knew? maybe if you studied it
> > long enough, familiar shapes might begin to emerge, some in fact what you
> > might call, what was the word, entertaining—
> >
> > What exactly is the distinction between "gaze at" and "gaze into" here?
> > --
> > Pynchon-L: https://waste.org/mailman/listinfo/pynchon-l
>
>
>
> --
> Pynchon-L: https://waste.org/mailman/listinfo/pynchon-l
>