Date: Fri, 20 May 1994 13:33:40 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: diasporal evasions
To: baudrillard-AT-world.std.com
Cc: baudrillard-AT-world.std.com


Should we really speak of getting "behind" or seeing "into" 
things--penetrating surfaces, exposing the hidden?  It seems to me that 
Baudrillard asks us to question this kind of inquiry, this "hermeneutics 
of suspicion."  Is the computer screen a superficial abyss?  I don't 
know, but then, I don't know if that's a relevant question.  "Abyss" 
carries all kinds of negative baggage, or positive baggage (if you're 
into the decadence thing).  Either way, it's tied to a system of 
signification that assumes, from the get go, that technology is 
fundamentally "other," apart from us in some sort of (meta)physical way.  
I don't know.  I think this science stuff done got in our bones already 
anyway.  Maybe it was always there, but we didn't realize it because our 
machines were too "unsophisticated," so much so that we didn't even think 
of them as machines.  Which brings me back to where I was a second ago.  
What's the difference between ourselves and our machines?  If we don't 
know that, then how can we speak of their effects on us? 

On Fri, 20 May 1994 BALDWINE-AT-steffi.uncg.edu wrote:

> Thanks, JThornton -- a look behind the mask (ex-posing) is 
> precisely what I'm suggesting (pro-posing).  I'd like to see
> into and behind the illusion of community or interpersonal
> relationship in cyberspace.  Wouldn't that necessarily mean
> us/me being our/my own object of investigation?  Is the computer
> screen a superficial abyss?  A mirror?
> 
> Beth B
>