The Kenosha Kid lives.

Sat May 21 13:14:40 CDT 2016

Have no fear, David.

On Sat, May 21, 2016 at 1:55 PM, David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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> 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/20160521/544914f5/attachment.html>