Gravity's Rainbow and Northrop

Northrop Grumman is the second largest American military corporation and sixth largest military contractor worldwide. Recently, four individuals who protested against Northrop's profiting from taxpayer money have been charged of felony.

The protagonist of Pynchon's Gravity's Rainbow is Tyron Slothrop. Every location in Britain where Slothrop had sex with a woman becomes hit by a V-2 rocket.

Slothrop = Northrop?

Question of the Meaning of Nothing

In the Science of Logic, being is determined as a form of thinking. This is not a discovery of fact, as if "being" were already given, and that the "form of thinking" was introduced as a mere modification of this fact. Rather, "being" is here a word coined to name that which marks the beginning of pure thinking. To ask "does this really capture the meaning of being?" is meaningless, because such a question already presupposes that the term "being" has a meaning which needs to be discovered.

Perhaps "we" always already understand being in a determinate way. Yet, what does "our" understanding of being have to do with being itself? Beginning from such an understanding of being is already to narrow down the focus of thinking arbitrarily. The problem then is that those who do not share this understanding might be excluded from that inquiry, and moreover one can demonstrate explicitly how each understanding excludes an alternative. There is no universality in such thinking.

Philosophy focuses on the universal in the particulars. Being is not "the most" universal, but being is nonetheless a universal, if being were to be considered philosophically. Moreover, philosophy is thinking - the essence of philosophy is to think. If one stops thinking, one stops doing philosophy. Therefore, if there is philosophy, thinking must also exist. There are, of course, other ways of being. Beings can be without thinking. But when these beings are considered philosophically, they take part in thinking by guiding thinking and by being guided by thought.

The experiment of the Science of Logic is to see how far the boundaries of thinking can be pushed. One immediate result of the opening of the Logic is this: in thinking of what is, or of being, thinking cannot help but also think of what is not, or of nothing. It is of the very essence of thinking to think of the negative, which also means that thought as such already is a negative thought.

The negative is what makes thought concrete, "for-itself" in Hegel's language. Philosophy begins with the thought "thinking is." Philosophy then asks, "given that thinking is, what must be the case such that thinking is?" There are no other beings in existence except thinking at this point. Yet, there is thinking, and moreover there is the being of thinking. Thinking cannot "be" unless there is also "being." Hence, there is being. Moreover, this being is such that it sustains thinking, or is the being of thinking. Therefore, being is here not a completely undetermined placeholder, an empty name. Rather, being is the being of thinking, and it must be so in this context.

But then thinking is not absolutely identical with being. Rather, there are other ways of being for other beings. Thinking, then, may well not be. But then, what is the ground for the possibility of the non-being of thinking? The answer is: the negation of being, nothing. Here, again, "nothing" is a determinate nothing, a negation of the being of thinking.

Philosophy begins, then, with the antinomy "thinking is" and "thinking is not." Here, "is" does not privilege presence. Rather, "is" is understood in the sense of "God is," or "nature is," or "time is," and so forth. That is, thinking is here still timeless. Whether thinking first "is" and then "is not," whether these two propositions refer to the same point in time or in different points, these are illegitimate questions, because time is not presupposed. It is possible to think of being as timeless, and since being here is understood as the being of thinking, thinking is also timeless at this point. The necessity of introducing time should become clear in the course of thinking.

The nothing of thinking is moreover not merely singular. First, there is the nothing as the absolute negation of being, a nothing which, if it were to be, would absolutely leave no room for being. This is pure nothing. Second, however, the very thoughts of a "nothing which leaves no room for being" implies the being of nothing, and this residue of being in nothing cannot be erased without erasing thinking and the nothing of thinking too. Being, then, is despite of pure nothing. Nothing has to admit of this residue, and this admission compromises its purity. Here, nothing is an existent nothing. The existent nothing negates the pure nothing, not by virtue of itself (for that would be to presuppose this existent nothing,) but by virtue of the falsity of the thought of pure nothing. Pure nothing is false because the absolute negation of being, and the full isolation of nothing, cannot help but reintroduce being, for such an absolute nothing nonetheless is.

Pure nothing and existent nothing form a new antinomy, that is, the sides imply each other and complete a new form of thinking. This antinomy already anticipates, perhaps, the problem with the notion of "carving nature at its joints." In one sense, nature does have its joints, and "blue" and green" are joint-carving whereas "grue" and "bleen" are not. However, the two pairs cannot be reduced to a mere difference in "ideology." "Grue" is a new color, and if "bleen" is to be distinguished from "grue," then that, again, is a fourth color. If "bleen," "grue," and other such variants are intelligible as colors, then these carve nature at its joints too, for nature has these joints. If nature appears as having joints independent of thought, then that is the fault of neither nature nor of thought, but of our subjective reflection on our own thoughts as they are reflected in the way nature appears to our mind. Likewise, "being" and "nothing" produce a joint, while "existent nothing" produces a third joint. The term "joint" should be understood metaphorically at best, and is probably even then too misleading and muddles the thinking that takes place at this stage. Even when applied to nature, the term "joint" is arbitrary and misleading, for who has proven that the idea of nature has "joints" anyway? If an ideology informs thought, and if nature appears according to the difference in which self-conscious thinking is informed, then ideology has to have an effect on ontology as well. The "joints" of nature are determined by thought, and so it is tautological to claim that thought carves nature at its joints.

Withdrawing

In one interview, filmmaker Margaret von Trotta compared Heidegger and Arendt and stated that the former withdrew into the solitude of lonely thinking while the latter decided to think publicly and with the people. Von Trotta's view is also Arendt's view, at least as it is seen in "Heidegger the Fox," where Heidegger is portrayed as a fox who is an expert at trapping people because he himself lives in a trap all the time.

How would Heidegger respond to von Trotta and Arendt? Heidegger would say that speaking "with the people" and "in public" might easily end up reproducing the dominant ideology through "idle talk." If one really wants to say something, then one needs to withdraw from the public and the people, as Descartes, Kant, Collingwood, and many others withdrew.

「テティス」―実験翻訳メモ

505文字という制限だけでは、文字の種類と数に文章や内容が一方的に従属することになってしまう。505文字という制限に加え、翻訳文という制限があれば、形式と内容の均衡が実現する。一方的に意味を恣意的にすることも許されなければ、あらかじめ定められた意味を恣意的に選ばれた言葉で訳すことも許されない。

この制約は、直接にはテティスの特性を根拠にしている。テティスは新聞記事から切り抜かれた踊子で、新聞記事の一部が偶然含む文字によって全身が覆われている。この踊子が踊るのが本章。つまり、ある定まった種類と数の文字が舞う。踊子が身体をひねらせたり回転させたりする度に、文字の並びは変わり、異なる意味をもつ文字列となる。

505文字は、オックスフォード英語辞典における各文字の登場頻度の比を参考にして割り出された数である。Ｑを１とした場合、Ａは４３、Ｂは１０・・・といった具合に、各文字の数が決まる。これを全て足すと505文字になるのである。

私は、505文字を「Ｓｃｒａｂｂｌｅ」の文字タイルにして、家の床に並べて「翻訳」をした。只今三周目、つまり、今のところ505文字×２周＝1010文字の英文が完成している。

作業をしていると、普通の翻訳者が守るべきルールは段々霞み行き、代わりに別のルールに身を任せている自分を発見する。原文への忠実さはもちろん大切なのだが、本章では文意を損ねさえしなければ多少正確さを犠牲にしてしまってもよい。第一目的はあくまで「文意を保存しつつ505文字を使い切る」ことである。すると、たとえば同じ単語を繰り返す使うことが困難になる（同じ文字を偏って消費してしまうため）。あるいは、言葉を選ぶときに、他の言葉のためにどの文字を残すべきかを基準にすることが増えてくる。

「どの文字を残すべきか」という問いは、普通の翻訳作業ではまず生じない。しかし、本章、特に作業の終盤において、これは最も大切な問いとなる。

ＣＯＰ２１や原発問題、戦争の激化、エネルギー問題・・・　これらはすべて、限られた資源をどう使用していくかの問題である。限りある資源を前にして、他の変数をどう設定すべきか。それはちょうど、限りある文字を前にして、言葉をどう選択すべきかに悩むことと似ている。「こんなものは翻訳ではない！」とか、「これは悪文を通り越して単なるナンセンスだ！」という批判を看破することはできない。どうしても、どこかで妥協しなければならなくなる。一方で、翻訳者である私は、「意味の忠実な写し」という規範から離れ、「限られた文字をどう使うか」という新たな基準に重点を移す。そうすることによって、私は過去の理想に執着する理想主義者から、今の現実から出発する現実主義者へと変身するのである。とはいえ、理想を完全に捨てたわけではない。翻訳とは、過去に誰かが書いたテキストを基盤とする。「テティス」の章の「同文字再利用訳」は、過去と今が互いに妥協した結果なのだ。

Be Lazy! - The Average Citizen's Strategy for Fighting Global Climate Change

Most people are not in the position to directly do the things which can solve the problem of global climate change.

Not owning a car, recycling stuff, and composting are good things to do. In fact, they are necessary. But, the main emitters are big oil, big agriculture, and big energy, as this shows. Large-scale monocultural farming (mostly corn) and factory farming (mostly livestock) is a major reason why the human environment is getting screwed up.

How to change big insutries? One obviously important thing is to support local small-scale farms by buying their products. However, many people do not have that option (and this is the real problem!) They do not have this option because they are either (a) not being offered the choice at all (no locally produced groceries available in their neighborhood), or (b) unable to afford it.

Therefore, there needs to be both (a) a rule that says that every town should have at least one grocery store where buyers can choose to buy locally produced food, and (b) a raise in wages so that buyers can afford to buy this food.

In addition, large-scale farmers should not receive state subsidy, simply because such subsidy makes competition highly unfair. Small-scale farming is more cost-efficient, but the subsidy makes it appear as if large-scale farming produces cheaper food. In reality, it's more expensive.

Big oil and big energy is altogether a different monster. I do not know enough to suggest solutions here. However, it seems quite clear that making people feel guilty for heating their rooms in winter or cooling it during summer would go nowhere.

Green energy does not help much, either. Green energy has become a mantra for climate change activists and government official alike. But solar panels are not sustainable! So are wind turbines and large dams!

The main task is not to replace fossil fuels with green energy while maintaining current levels of energy consumption. Rather, the task should be to simply reduce energy consumption and find the optimal hybrid of fossil fuels and other alternative energy sources at the same time.

So, can average citizens directly bring about the necessary changes? The answer is an obvious "no." Why? Because both big agriculture and big energy can be tackled by someone who has the power to prevent global corporations from doing what they do. This means legal power as well as brute physical force, such as the power to control the military or the police. If you can threaten the CEO of big oil companies and big agricultural companies, then you are in a position to directly solve the issue of global climate change. If you can say "hey, we won't subsidize you, and we will tax you fairly, and we prohibit you to emit carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases beyond a certain level; and if you fail to comply with our orders within a year or two, then we will jail your executives," if you can say this to global corporations, then you are in a position to change things for the better. If not, then you are not in a position to directly make the necessary changes.

And the vast majority of the people are not in such positions!

So we can only act indirectly. We can't issue threats, and we can't just be violent, like Joseph Andrew Stack. That would backfire on us big time. Means are limited.

Here are some suggestions:

• Talk about the issues and solutions publicly.
• Do something through your profession: be sneaky. (This depends on what kind of job you have; for example, if you work in retail, then perhaps you can casually let your customers know what big agriculture is. If you work in education, tell your students about the reality of climate change and how to attack big energy and big agriculture. It really depends.)
• Support and vote for the right politicians and judges. (This is having a major effect globally; despite corporate media propaganda, the right politicians and judges are taking power more and more.)
• And yes, for the time being, we can't but help being consumers, so at least consume wisely! (Bike, don't drive; cut back on processed food, especially with corn and cheap meat in it; etc.)
• Negotiate for pay raises; this actually helps the environment in the long run, because it gives you more options as a consumer to support low-energy products.
• Participate in protests and other political events if you see them happening in your locale.

These suggestions are not terribly radical. They are all indirect, and that is why one might become overwhelmed by the feeling: "But am I really doing the right thing? Is this leading anywhere?"

So I guess the last thing to keep in mind is that things can fail. Yes, it can fail big time. How do you face the prospect of failure, without feeling despair, without becoming cynical and nihilistic? The answer is to have a clear idea of what might happen if the majority of people in this world acted upon the principles which you act upon. If everyone did the kind of things suggested above, then things will move forward. However, this thought should not translate into a sense of moral superiority, because there is nothing particularly heroic about taking action for the prevention of climate change. So what's the right attitude to take here?

Personally, I think that one nice idea is to be lazy. Climate change is a result of human beings being far too productive for their own good. Be lazy! Don't work! Read a good book, or have useless conversations with friends in a cafe or a pub or in your rooms!

Laziness has many virtues. For instance, you don't have to buy Christmas cards and Christmas presents to everyone you know, because you are lazy. You don't have to "enjoy yourself" because enjoyment takes too much of your already depleted energy. You don't want to "fly around the world" and "have a career" because it just seems like too much work. You only ever go to work reluctantly, out of absolute necessity. And even this should feel somewhat unfair and absurd, if you really are a committed lazy person. So you start demanding for free stuff. Not too much stuff, but enough to keep you alive, like food and shelter and clothing and good company. That's it.

Unproductive lazy people are at least more eco-friendly than super-productive overachievers. So why condemn lazy people and praise the money-makers? To positively embrace laziness as a virtue is perhaps one of the best strategies to avoid falling into the pitfalls of despair and nihilism.