The Kenosha Kid lives.

Sat May 21 12:55:28 CDT 2016

I hope you don't take that warning of mistaking a map or symbol for "being"
a Numinous Order of Things as being a statement that such an Order (or,
more likely MANY such orders) doesn't exist.  GR is a question, not an
answer.

David Morris

On Saturday, May 21, 2016, Monte Davis <montedavis49 at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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/20160521/0974a367/attachment.html>