Semiotics, Franz Ferdinand / GRGR 1,7 / Jodorowski

[Michael Bailey]

John Doe wrote
> >
>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....

I was quoting specifically as regards a stricter Freudian
interpretation by Keesey of "Entropy" than seemed tenable to me (I
would credit a Pynchonian interpretation of Freud much more than the
other way to), and in general as to a human tendency to take what one
wants from texts, which I know that I practice, but not maliciously, i
sincerely hope not

Aubade is one of those delicious names, and although I bought and read
Learner back in the 70s, very little of it has stayed with me (I can
just about memory dump what I took from the book on a couple lines: a
claim of the pervasive influence of Baedeker (while Weissburger
revealed that the Times of London was also a significant source), a
mellowness about the "Secret Integration" that I'm learning to look
for in the novels, and a curiosity about Porpentine,  Admittedly I
read the book during one of my less thoughtful epochs)
I am going to buy a copy of Slow Learner to reread at least the preface.

--------------------------
David Gentle wrote
> Subject: Re: semiotics
>
> > look, i'm sorry, but i simply fail to understand how sentences such as
> > "suck my ass, you franz-ferdinand-listening douche" can be misinterpreted
> > vis-a-vis their specific intention.
> Perhaps you are concerned that an ardent devotee of a specific Arch Duke
> could obtain some nourishment or comfort from sucking your donkey? Admitedly
> that's unlikely.
>

Franz Ferdinand - what the heck did he ever say that anybody would
remember or refer to  -- oh, pardon, per Wikipedia Franz Ferdinand is
a Scottish alternative rock band.  Now I'm curious

-----------------------------
1,7 - Pointsman gets his foot stuck in a toilet bowl.  Roger comes to
his assistance and gets an ether buzz (didn't Burroughs say that an
ether stone is the most disgusting) Jessica refers to Roger as a
"gillie" (which apparently is a Scottish term for servant) and stands
back from the action having a cigaret.
The dog, bless his heart, gets away.
Supposing that I have an aesthetic sensibility, it's called into play
by Pointsman's appearance (he's been referred to before, but here he
is - sort of like Slothrop, also mentioned in Bloat's thoughts in the
office and prior conversations with Tantivy, and first glimpsed at a
bombsite; now Pointsman, whose name came up at Snoxall's and in
Roger's thoughts, is seen at a place of wreckage (and isn't there a
"dump" setting somewhere in SL?)), his getting his foot stuck in the
toilet bowl (foreshadowing Slothrop's journey), and the quick cut from
his POV to that of the dog, which I find appropriate because
Pavlovians and dogs are linked inextricably in the literature (even a
Rolling Stones song) and by letting the dog get away, I think Pynchon
is asserting that the answer to the koan "does a dog have the Buddha
nature" is "woof"
------
It looks like most Jodorowski films aren't available in the US...is
there an upbeat one without a lot of violence with US encoding that
someone would recommend?  Also, is his book "Psicomagia" any fun?