BE ch 5 nerd wars

[David Morris]

Probably so.

I’ll drag out the books and skim to refresh my memory.

On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 6:30 PM Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com> wrote:

> Yes, I agree......but didn't Brown have a less "logical' as it were, less
> so clearly shown as in your example, way of arguing.....talking of the Id
> after childhood....as one grew to adulthood then BOOM, sex....
> and a way to not repress then?........one's sexual desire and one's ego
> together.......lovemaking much more often and easily and just as much, no
> mechanical. societal stragith-jacketing with one's demanding work,
> monotonous work, narrow boring work.......as Marcuse argued too (I conflate
> maybe) .........sorta like Philip Roth's life as we know it?....
>
> On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 4:48 PM David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> And just after I hit “send,” I see your real question:
>>
>> “*Our repressed id wants what it wants but it did not, does not, have to
>> be repressed, does it? Is that part of the later meanings of Cyprian and
>> Yasmeen **in AtD??*”
>>
>> So, setting aside the question of inherent structures of the psyche (and
>> I don’t think Freud assumed they existed - but I could be wrong), let’s
>> look at how an infant might first experience the repressed:  It is
>> helplessly laying there hungry, and no one comes to feed or comfort it.  It
>> starts to cry, then it starts to scream, and then shake in extreme duress.
>> Yet still it is given nothing. At each turn it feels higher levels of pain
>> and frustration and fear and WANTS TO DIE!!!  But, no matter what it wants,
>> that want is denied it.  So, what next?  There’s only one option:  repress
>> that desire.
>>
>> Now that’s only a very simple example. Life proceeds with more desires
>> and frustrations, and the Holy Books are full of lists of possible
>> conflicts and desires and situations for one to maybe get some pre-set
>> directions for resolutions or rules of engagement.  But at some age,
>> usually by the age of two, the person in a life-trauma is convinced that
>> the only solution is either murder or suicide.  And he/she has to repress
>> that desire.  So repression of the Id is plainly unavoidable.
>>
>> That’s just the first step in answering your question. And the
>> Cyprian-Yasmeen episodes ARE part of Pynchon’s attempts to address the
>> issue further.  A part of that exploration has to do with something like a
>> concept of polyamory, explored in Brown’s subsequent work “Love’s Body”
>> (but that’s not the word he used).  Give me a little more time, and I might
>> be able to dig it up.
>>
>> David Morris
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 3:41 PM David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Mark,
>>>
>>> Regarding Brown, he never mentioned anything religious like original
>>> sin. But the concept of having been “born this way,” as in having
>>> structures in the psyche that are common to all humans - despite whatever
>>> post-birth training or trauma that might (or might not) occur, is assumed.
>>> So in considering “the repressed,” I don’t think he (or anyone) envisioned
>>> any situation where one might not have those components as a part of their
>>> psyche.  Of course that suggests that these aspects aren’t developed by
>>> experience, but are structural, inherent.
>>>
>>> Was this your question?
>>>
>>> This leads to a parallel question:  Is the human race, and thus all
>>> cultures and human-systems, pathological by nature?  THAT is what I meant
>>> by “original sin,” except “sin” is just an incorrect word in this context.
>>>
>>> David Morris.
>>>
>>> On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 5:56 AM Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I say this is the best analysis of this famous quote that I've read.
>>>> Simple "doing logic" (as Graebner and Wengrow say, not positively
>>>> sometimes) question: if Ego's meaning is in dispute and always has been,
>>>> DID Pynchon mean Brown's
>>>> meaning here?...arguable, but* I agree with David. Pynchon pushed to
>>>> the limits conceptually in GR so, deeply influenced by Brown, why would he
>>>> not mean that meaning? ......*
>>>>
>>>> However, for continued discussion I also ask this, I hope logically.
>>>> The white albatross is only the corporate emblem, which even under the
>>>> original sin use seems to work as a superb nuance from Pynchon since the
>>>> bulk of the meaning of The Man and us is in the rest of the sentence.
>>>> We show/feel guilt like an emblem. More brilliance.
>>>>
>>>>  AND, I've read Brown and I would say he does not believe in "original
>>>> sin' in the way that concept is usually used. That is, as inherent in human
>>>> nature, religiously so to thicken this paragraph, no
>>>> matter how that human nature created itself from the earliest human
>>>> times; from the non-existent Garden of Eden (and its original sin mythos)
>>>> thru other ways of interpersonal, social existences. Brown did believe, am
>>>> I right? ,
>>>> that it all could have been different and still could be with the same
>>>> 'human' stock?
>>>>
>>>> PS. Writing the word "inherent' above, of course, reminds me of *Inherent
>>>> Vice* and the famous (for us) scene of violence and its telling in
>>>> that novel. As well as the title;  all leaving some of us--me--with the
>>>> belief that Pynchon
>>>> is purposely never clear on that inherent original sin (as we also
>>>> called it then).
>>>>
>>>> I think I would agree with that here about this quote BECAUSE of
>>>> David's glossing with Brown. Our repressed id wants what it wants but it
>>>> did not,does not, have to be repressed, does it? Is that part of the later
>>>> meanings of Cyprian and Yasmeen
>>>> in AtD??
>>>>
>>>> PS: By the way, Graebner's and Wengerow's book is great on 'human
>>>> nature' in all kinds of societies, esp on those before or outside (largely)
>>>> of our written History and what might be 'inherent", although I read them
>>>> like Pynchon, philosophically agnostic on THAT in all the ways that matter.
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 7:17 PM David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> “each local rep  [of The Man in our brain]  has a cover known as the
>>>>> Ego”
>>>>>
>>>>> So, let’s dig a little deeper into that pivotal GR quote:
>>>>>
>>>>> In GR, Pynchon was *immersed* in Norman O Brown’s *Life Against
>>>>> Death,* and thus into a deep consideration of Freud’s theories.  If
>>>>> Pynchon says that our *Ego* is the Man’s “cover” (a spy’s false identity)
>>>>> inside our brain, that’s essentially Pynchon saying that “The Man” inside
>>>>> our brain is our *Repressed** Id!!!* That’s what Pynchon is calling
>>>>> the “bad shit” which is  *The Man* inside our brain.  (Are you
>>>>> following all that?)
>>>>>
>>>>> So, calling the emblem of the white albatross “a sign of guilt or
>>>>> frustration” isn’t even a pale shadow of what Pynchon meant it to represent
>>>>> in GR.  Joe was much closer when he called it “original sin.”  It’s a sign
>>>>> of the malignancy of *the repressed Id* in every person’s psyche.
>>>>> And that’s why we can’t shake it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Like Mark said, it’s not our fault, but we are responsible (for what
>>>>> we do with it).
>>>>>
>>>>> I don’t know how much of GR’s ontology is Pynchon’s, and if it has
>>>>> survived into BE.  But I think some of it is and has.
>>>>>
>>>>> David Morris
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>