Fwd: The Kenosha Kid lives.

[Monte Davis]

KFL > the pseudo-scientific numbers in brackets - not only (1) & (5), but
also (2.1) & (3.1) - undermine the trust in the given information
furthermore.
​

For me that format ​runs back through Wittgenstein

1 The world is all that is the case.
1.1 The world is the totality of facts, not of things.
1.11 The world is determined by the facts, and by their being
all the facts.
1.12 For the totality of facts determines what is the case, and
also whatever is not the case.
1.13 The facts in logical space are the world.
1.2 The world divides into facts.
​(usw)

to​ Leibniz, and beyond that to Euclid (before decimals came into use,
various letter hierarchies a la "B-a, B-b, B-c" were used for steps in a
geometric proof).

There's definitely deliberate parody here, because *there is in fact no
logical hierarchy* to the permutations of "YNDTKK" that corresponds to
decimal-numerical sequences.

The same goes for Wittgenstein's and Euclid's propositions: a number or
letter schema provides handy pegs for "chunking" the material, orienting
oneself, and teaching. But the "therefores" -- the qualitative turns of
thought that are the bones of a geometric proof or philosophical argument
-- can't actually be mapped to the number line. Nobody actually experiences
red as quantitatively "more" (in wavelength) or "less" (in frequency) than
violet.

Bottom line: although GR will tempt Slothrop (and us) to do so repeatedly,
beware of mistaking a notational convenience -- e.g., rocket serial numbers
or branches up/down the kabbalistic tree of life -- for a numinous Order of
Things.

On Sat, May 21, 2016 at 6:21 AM, Kai Frederik Lorentzen <
lorentzen at hotmail.de> wrote:

>
> In a former millennium, I wrote in this context:
>
> I want to suggest a somehow stupid reading of the first two pages & the
>> last
>>
> four lines of this episode. Maybe it helps to understand some 'formal'
> aspects
> of this "outstanding enigma()" (Weisenburger).
>
> The facsimile-like graphic representation of the letters with its detailed
> address information, which awakens in the reader the expectation of a
> 'rational'
> communication, stands in contrast to the limited content.
>
> The question "Did I ever bother you, ever, for anything, in your life?"
> can be
> observed as a 'performative self-contradiction'. By asking for an answer &
> communicating affective commitment (: "Yours truly"), Slothrop, in fact, is
> bothering the Kid. Same paradox with the answer: "You never did". A
> disproof in
> itself. "Ass backwards", so to say.
>
> Never having done the Kenosha Kid myself, I understand something like "Stop
> making sense!", when I read all the different versions of this sentence:
> "But
> you never did the 'Kenosha', kid! ...But you never did the 'Kenosha
> Kid'... You!
> never did the Kenosha Kid (...) ... You? Never! Did the Kenosha Kid (...)
> ...
> You never did 'the', Kenosha Kid! ... But you never did the Kenosha Kid.
> ... You
> never did the Kenosha Kid. ... YOU, never? (...) DID the Kenosha Kid?".
> Seems
> that only "You never did?!? The Kenosha Kid!?" was forgotten.
>
> I think that this is some kind of mindfuck. Before we (: TP, TS & the
> readers)
> can descend to the unconscious (- in its 'socio-anal' aspects here
> represented
> by the toilet in Boston's Roseland Ballroom), the 'rational ego' has to be
> casted out by frustating its efforts of unmistakable interpretation. The
> episode
> "seems to come full circle" (Weisenburger). A formal hint against linear
> sense-making. Round & round & round & round the interpretations go. But WE
> have
> to go ON! We have to go DEEPER ...
>
> Let's get real with 'ontological pluralism'!
>
> Furthermore, the pseudo-scientific numbers in brackets - not only (1) &
> (5), but
> also (2.1) & (3.1) - undermine the trust in the given information
> furthermore.
> It's like Mr. P. wants to evoke the spirit of deadly scientific
> abstraction to
> exorcise it before we go on with our trip.
>
> In a way, the framework of this episode reminds me of the end of "Ulysses".
> Before we can float with Molly Bloom's (un)conscious[ness], the
> conventional
> expectations of novel-readers get fulfilled in a pseudo-'rational' form in
> chapter 17 (- "* What parallel courses did Bloom and Stephen follow
> returning?
> ..."). & aren't the variations on "You never did the Kenosha Kid!" quite
> similar
> to "Sinbad the Sailor and Tinbad the Tailor and Jinbad the Jailer and
> Whinbad
> the Whaler and Ninbad the Nailer and Finbad the Failer and Binbad the
> Bailer and
> Pinbad the Pailer and Minbad the Mailer and Hinbad the Hailer and Rinbad
> the
> Railer and Dinbad the Kailer and Vinbad the Quailer and Linbad the Yailer
> and
> Xinbad the Phthailer"?!  (...) <
>
>
> https://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l&month=9906&msg=39052&sort=date
>
> On 21.05.2016 11:39, Mark Kohut wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.adweek.com/galleycat/gravitys-rainbow-punctuation-explored-on-twitter/116841
>>
>> https://twitter.com/YouNeverDidThe
>>
>
>
> -
> Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20160521/40f00b8a/attachment.html>