semiotics

[John Doe]

Re the below: I'm a bit confused; seems to me the
claim of privileged INTENTION would be easily
supportable by the explicit remarks of intention by
the writer himself....If I write a novel, and then
tell you personally that I intended, that I
deliberately contrived, the name Howie Surd to sound
like "how absurd!", then I have pre-determined a
meaning; all the French Theory gooffballs can prattle
on about that the author has no REAL control over the
construed sematics of his work, blah blah blah, but go
try telling 99% of fiction writers that, and see what
responmse you get - sorry, but there IS an "I" behind
this "text" right now in the sense that certain
meanings WILL be taken from this writing by others
pretty much they way I see them happening in my
"mind's eye"; to deny that is wonderfull fun and boy
what a hoot it is to pretend that writers are
automatons and mere conduits for semiotic action, but
it's a view that nobody REALLY ascribes to on a GUT
level; when you write, YOU feel like a director of the
meaning ( obviously with some undeliberate and
unconcious secondaty meanings emerging as well ), and
your sense of intentionality pervades the doings of
your daily routine whether you admit it or not; we
simply do not "feel", or feel others, to be mere
unconcious transmitters of Absolute Ambiguity; if
writing were THAT ambiguous all the time then we'd
never get anything done....


--- Michael Bailey <michael.lee.bailey at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Glenn Scheper wrote:
> > lecture series:
>
>http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/epc/srb/cyber/sim1.html
> 
> good stuff!
> "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."
> 
> ie, any reader is free to misinterpret _Gravity's
> Rainbow_
> 
> ---
> 1,6 - no Pirate, no Slothrop, I'm getting the idea
> that there's a
> viewfinder that isn't exactly fixated on any one
> character.
> 
> I checked out the Wikipedia entry for Tunbridge
> Wells (where R & J
> meet) and learned that "The famous mathematician the
> Reverend Thomas
> Bayes lived in Tunbridge Wells" - I've heard of
> Bayesian analysis,
> perhaps at some point I can apply that to the text
> (-:
> However, the article goes on to cite a series of
> letters to the Times
> in the 1920's that were signed "Disgusted of
> Tunbridge Wells"
> Also, Lawrence of Arabia mentioned the town in the
> movie of the same
> name (as Lawrence, that is)
> And, doing my bit for the side, I added a cite for
> Gravity's Rainbow
> in the article
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Tunbridge_Wells#World_views_of_the_town
> 
> 
> 
> --
> "Acceptance, forgiveness, love - now that's a
> philosophy of life!"
> -Woody Allen, as Broadway Danny Rose
> 
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com