Date: Fri, 20 May 1994 15:33:08 -0500 (EST)
From: BALDWINE-AT-iris.uncg.edu
Subject: relevant questions
To: 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."

Okay -- help me; I'm semantically trapped.  But, doesn't asking
"should we" imply a hermeneutic of suspicion?  *Could* we, then,
look into, behind, at, to, around, have a conversation about, etc.,
superficial cyber-abyss?  

> I don't know if that's a relevant question.

True; I guess we need a context for relevance.  I remember, this
thread started because someone asked whether or not this list was
still active; someone else chimed in with how difficult it was
to talk about JB (Jim Beam, I liked).  So, I suggested a context.
That context being us & the space in which we share ideas.  I've
only dug myself into deeper and deeper holes.  So, what is
a relevant question from some of your perspectives?  Notice,
though, that any question, if not asked to elicit information
(like "where's the bathroom"), *may* imply suspicion.  

>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?

Again, I don't mean to imply that we don't know the difference between
ourselves and our machines -- but perhaps we don't know the difference
between ourselves and our interlocutors (sometimes).  Conversation
in this space tends in that direction because of its disembodied
nature.  Can we speak of this effect on us?

Beth B