I would like to discuss the conversation between Dr. Pointsman and Roger Mexico about the statistical probability of war. Between the two exist two different mindsets about the bombings. Pointsman is a notorious Pavlovian, someone who believes things can be trained and outcomes can be accurately predicted, or as Pynchon puts it either 1 or 0. Mexico is statistician, who lives in-between 1 and 0, or probability. The two are discussing the frequency of the bombings and the locations. Pointsman believes that from past bombings that there can be a safe place to go into, but Mexico insists that this is the “Monte Carlo Fallacy.” This fallacy is the Gamblers fallacy that previous events can affect future events. This is a common fallacy, if playing roulette and it lands on red six times in a row, the board is surely due for a black, but in fact each spin is completely independent, the odds remain the same. As Mexico puts it, “No link. No memory. No conditioning.” Pointsman later says how unfair it is, to which Mexico replies “It’s eminently fair.” This stark contrast between these two ways of thinking is an embodiment of the novel as a whole. Both sides of this argument merit discussion. Mexico suggests that the bombings follow a Poisson distribution, well known in the statistics community as a bell shaped curve, another rainbow shape, but attaches with that no real hope or desire to change his view. Mexico can be considered a “realist,” stating that everyone has an equal chance of getting hit, seeing life as representing the truly random state of nature. Pointsman cannot reconcile with this, “What if Mexico’s whole generation have turned out like this? Will Postwar be nothing but “events,” newly created one moment to the next? No links? Is it the end of history?” Here lies the main argument for Pointsman, he needs to believe that everything can be manipulated and controlled. Everything needs to be linked for Pointsman, there needs to be explanation and order, things cannot simply be random. Two different people, two completely different trains of thought. This clash can be more aptly described as the fight between nihilism and belief, and Pynchon seems to be asking us to choose. He gives us the insight of Pointsman, the thoughts and feeling, and the spoken words of Mexico. Certainly something can be said for this unique perspective about both their arguments. With Pointsman’s thoughts, we get his feelings and concerns, his beliefs and his worries, a human touch to a humanizing world view that views everything as connected. Mexico is the opposite, we only hear his words, cold and calculated, yet somehow oddly relieving, that everyone is the same and everyone has an equal chance of getting hit by a giant bomb. This is very similar to Heart of Darkness, in that Marlow was very nihilistic from his journey and his experiences, yet he encounters Kurtz, a firm believer in something greater than what was in front of him. The two could have not been more different when they first met. However, in Kurtz’s famous death scene, he sees the nihilism underlying the nature of his being. Mexico is a classic nihilist, which is why he is able to “play, so at ease, with these symbols of randomness and fright?” He understands that everyone is equal, and he accepts the fate that life is full of random events. Pynchon presents both of these arguments with out favoritism. Both are presented in the nature for which they stand, one with thought and feeling and belief, and one that is calculating and cold that understands the unpredictability of life. What is at stake in this disagreement between Pointsman and Mexico? I would venture to say it is the fight between nihilism and belief. Given the gravity of the events surrounding the argument between Mexico and Pointsman, I believe the stakes are high. For Pointsman, accepting Mexico’s point of view means accepting “the end of history.” This means that nothing in the past matters, understanding history has no significant importance for Mexico, therefore it would be pointless to be studied. For Mexico, accepting Pointsman means accepting that everyone is not equal, that there is a significant importance of past events and how they influence future events, there is a pattern. How should the future be treated, in relation to past events and attempted to be manipulated, or understood as random events with no correlation. Without being much more than a seventh of the book, it is certainly hard to tell which way Pynchon is leaning, but the stakes have been laid out and are clearly understood.
beenjamin-y on The Preterite and the Ele… John on The Adenoid and Nazi Germ… Guadalajara –… on The Preterite and the Ele… Alan Schultz on Death Battle: Marx vs. Ma… Gravity’s Rain… on The Séance of Walter Rath…
Tagsantonio marquez Authenticity Banana Breakfast Bibliography Biography Bleeding Edge Boris Kachka Chapman lighthouse character map characters Chinua Achebe christopher lee cinema cinematic imagination Crash and Burn die frau im mond fay wray film film theory fire of paradise Friedrich Nietzsche fritz lang fu manchu Games of Truth Gravity's Rainbow Gravity's Rainbow Criticism Gravity's Rainbow plot groucho marx Heart of Darkness i'll say she is Illustration Introduction to Critical Reading Ivory jessica John E. Badass Joseph Conrad Kabbalah katje Kurtz Marlow marx brothers meggezone Metatron metropolis Michel Foucault On Truth and LYing in a Nonmoral Sense Paranoia parrhesia PhD Pop Culture psychology Pynchon Pynchon Criticism reference Research Rob Horning roger sax rohmer Slothrop Social Media Sparky Sweets statistics summary Svati Kirsten Narula The Atlantic theatre The New Inquiry Thomas Pynchon Thug Notes true self Truth tyrone slothrop Vheissu Vulture Zak Smith