The Kenosha Kid lives.

Sat May 21 13:28:39 CDT 2016

Just checking.

On Saturday, May 21, 2016, Monte Davis <montedavis49 at gmail.com
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','montedavis49 at gmail.com');>> wrote:

> 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 , 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/20160521/9902475e/attachment.html>