The Kenosha Kid lives.

Sat May 21 12:31:37 CDT 2016

Orson Welles was born in Kenosha, Wisconsin, and I recall reading somewhere when the novel was first published that the Kid is an allusion to Welles – or is that basic and obvious? 

> On May 21, 2016, at 8:29 AM, 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 <mailto: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 <https://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l&month=9906&msg=39052&sort=date>
> 
> On 21.05.2016 11 <tel:21.05.2016%2011>:39, Mark Kohut wrote:
> 
> 
> http://www.adweek.com/galleycat/gravitys-rainbow-punctuation-explored-on-twitter/116841 <http://www.adweek.com/galleycat/gravitys-rainbow-punctuation-explored-on-twitter/116841>
> 
> https://twitter.com/YouNeverDidThe <https://twitter.com/YouNeverDidThe>
> 
> 
> -
> Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=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/20160521/84b45077/attachment.html>