File spoon-archives/lyotard.archive/lyotard_2003/lyotard.0310, message 81


Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 11:30:04 -0400
From: hbone <hbone-AT-optonline.net>
Subject: Pynchon


Steve/Eric/All,

Steve wrote:

>The statement is often repeated within science because of a general desire
that science be >understood from it's own internal perspective - but this is
unacceptable, at least until scientists >cease  knowingly carrying out
research that might cause harm to society. In reality science is >better
understood from an external perspective two or three paces over to the
left.... What >changed after the enlightenment is that science became royal,
believed in it's own truth producing >and truth bearing capabilities and has
broadly speaking replaced religion in this social role. (as >anon
directly/indirectly pointed out, sciences inability to accept the guilt for
the mass murders
>it has enabled is something that I think Hugh has pointed out previously).
The danger for us is >that; we can mistakenly accept that scientists and
engineers (such as myself) are speaking in >truths and facts - in reality
they do not, rather they mostly deal in propositions and theories all of
>which are disprovable, falsifiable. The lifetime of a given scientific
theory can be a longtime or it >can be short - an engineer or a philosopher
should scrutinise a theory, it's consequences and it's >intents much like a
Kudu watching a Lion at an African waterhole... with suspician.

Generally I agree with the above.  "The danger for us"  is accepting
theories of scientists, philosophers, novelists and other writers as
knowing/possessing "truths".  The idea that theories "may" be "truths" until
and unless subsequent evidence demonstrates their falsity, seems
practical.

Gradually I've become as skeptical of many "truths" of philosophers,
novelists and other writers as I am skeptical of theories of scientists.

Scientific theories are treated as "opinions", and when opinions are
advanced as "truths" known mainly to authoritative and legitimate elites,
they deserve the same sort of  skepticism we attribute to Divinity,
Fascists, or other totalitarian sources.

As for Gravity's Rainbow,  I'd have to re-read it, or at least portions, to
see how it stands up today.  I thought it very impressive at the time, and
Mason and Dixon doesn't compare, but parts
near the end show a different Pynchon than his earlier books.

I never knew he'd been accused of being Salinger -  He's a real person,
there is much info available if you have time to find it, and so far as I
know, he is still avoiding the public, and still writing.

Eric wrote:
>The tragicomedy of life is that it is always penultimate and yet we must go
on, without a story, to >write our story; no end of the world of stories,
where we always live in-between.

Yes, its very ephemeral.  We exist in our own minds and in the minds of
others, and only exceptional artists, writers, whatever...  exist beyond the
intangible memories of  individuals who knew them personally.

regards,
Hugh



the



   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005