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

[David Morris]

I didn’t mean to imply a conflict, just how closely it fit the Magic Eye
thing.  But that’s just the jokey part.  I think the Void reference is more
apt for a deeper take.

David Morris

On Sat, Aug 7, 2021 at 7:10 PM Joseph Tracy <brook7 at sover.net> wrote:

> Don’t really see a conflict.  There being several varieties of visual
> layering, it is hard to be sure about what exactly P had in mind, but that
> seems a good guess and a fairly universal reference that fits with the
> “nothing from the natural world line.. The reader won’t get it from the
> text in any sure way but the shift from flat to  multi dimensional  or
> back, the inner and outer conflicts over maps, the refractions, reflections
> and changing perspectives are a refrain throughout the book.
>
> On Aug 7, 2021, at 6:12 PM, David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I think the following:
>
> “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”
>
> sounds *exactly* like one of those Magic Eye posters.
>
> <image_6483441.JPG>
>
> David Morris
>
> On Sat, Aug 7, 2021 at 4:24 PM Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 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
>> >
>> --
>> Pynchon-L: https://waste.org/mailman/listinfo/pynchon-l
>>
>
>