semiotics / GRGR 1,1 thru 1,6

[Michael Bailey]

On 12/12/05, Sean Mannion <third_eye_unmoved at hotmail.com> wrote:
> "the claim of privileged knowledge of "context" or "intention" or
> "meaning" is truly difficult to support, especially considering that
> this would be a meaning constructed by the decoder as opposed to the
> encoder. In fact, it seems certain that an encoder is ultimately
> incapable of enforcing any significant control over what the decoder
> does with a given sign-vehicle."
>
> Will the concept of 'convention' figure in here at all?  Or is this another
> aspect of linguistic phenomenon conveniantly overlooked for the sake of an
> easy theory and a 'one-size-fits-all' method?
> ...As for that last sentence - I don't know anybody who takes that idea even
> remotely seriously.

I cherry-picked the quote, to illustrate a theory I have about
literary criticism in general, and to continue a thought I've written
about before in the context of reading GR: that my gleanings aren't
always subject to what Pynchon may have meant, and in fact may
represent what I want to see - like a smoker who reads a No Smoking
sign as "Nozz-moe King" for instance - (and the point itself was made
in passing - I meant to put a smiley face nearby)

The author of the lectures thoroughly points out the diversity of
interpretations of Peirce (and the other primary sources) - and
different definitions of pivotal terms, even among different
iterations of Peirce's work.  So the lectures appreciate the condition
of semiotics as a not-completely-agreed-upon set of conventions.

However, it seems to me that the last sentence of the quote isn't
unreasonable.  In fact, "not taking it seriously" is an example of a
receiver not subject to control by the intention of the sender.  Which
may have been your point ;-)

----------------
so, I overslept like Benny Profane and didn't get a chance to read much today

Thus far in the story, we've zoomed in from a generalized screaming
across the sky to Pirate in his castle and environs, lateraled to
Bloat, who focuses in on a space where Slothrop has been...then the
fears and generations of Slothrop and a presentation of a central
mystery: his sexual urge (actually, it looks like it's  _caused_ by
the young lady's advance to him - at least there is a non-negligible
element of volition on her part that I do not wish to
overlook)...witnessed a seance, and met Roger and Jessica

What is going on so far?  How closely do I want to read?  The reason I
like stories better than any other form of reading is probably linked
with the ancient tradition of sitting around a campfire and listening
to somebody, picturing things, empathizing with characters, relishing
words, and drifting off into reverie when appropriate.

It was fun reading Gravity's Rainbow in 1973 because it had all those
things (words, characters, images) but now looking at it a little more
closely it also has pointers for interesting study.

I think the idea of "convention" that you mention has a lot of
relevance.  Pynchon's work uses recognized conventions and develops
them logically, so by reading more deeply something that moved me (in
my initial shallow reading) I can improve my own ability to manipulate
symbols and relate to conventions - which is what it's all about,
isn't it?  Well, that and the hokey-pokey