Date: Sat, 16 Nov 1996 14:47:29 -0600 (CST)
From: Quetzil Castaneda <Quetzil-AT-UH.EDU>
Subject: Re: Douglas Kellner


Curious how one "must" be true to a hermenuetics of the Author Baudrillard
and His Intention, His Word, or how these relate to the "universe of texts
to which he has a TRUE Affinity!" --- clearly it is this hermeneutic logic
of an original and authentic which thus leads to a  flacid discarding (or is
it just silly?) of kellner (and others now doubt who do not attain normal
scientific replication of the author's Meaning! or the Author's Meaning in
Context), but is "baudrillard" so oriented to disclosing a la hermeneutics
the intentional and true meaning of an author of cultural forms?  

If you do not like kellner, give a good reason.

Cheers!~
quetzil.

At 01:34 PM 11/16/96 -0500, you wrote:
>Mr. Kellner, I _have_ read your book  "Jean Baudrillard: From Marxism to
>Postmodernism and Beyond" (1989). I am willing to revise the second half of my
>statement to "although Kellner likes certain aspects of B.'s writings, there is
>lots and lots about them that he doesn't like". I think this is a fairly
>accurate re-stating of what you yourself just wrote in your posting.
>
>In Gary Genosko's "Baudrillard and Signs: Signification Ablaze" (1994) he
>criticizes your book for being weak in the area of semiotics. You are also not
>especially sympathetic to fatal theory or the idea of a virtuality
syndrome. You
>think that Jarry's pataphysics is some terrible form of regression.
>
>As far as I can tell, your position in the book is that of a critical theorist
>who is influenced by many different writers in the critical and cultural theory
>tradition. You have certain specific ideas of what leftist cultural critique is
>/ should be, and you place a lot of importance on a certain idea of political
>practice. The side of you that is sympathetic to B. is saying "let's see what
>there is of value in his work that can be added to our critical theory
>repetoire". 
>
>This is different from, say, fully entering into the Weltanschauung of B., who
>rejects critical theory and says he is a fatal theorist who wants to
analyze the
>possibilities for radical change in the "ironic reversibility of objects" and
>the "revenge of mirrors."
>
>As far as I understand it, the methodology of intellectual history should be to
>really enter into the world-view of the author under study, and let this
>world-view live in the light of day (as a true other!), before then going on to
>criticize that world-view if you wish.
>
>I think the strength of Genosko's book, for example, is that he tries to
situate
>B. in relation to the universe of texts with which B. has true affinities
>(Artaud, Ballard, Bataille, Chatwin, Jarry, Segalen, Vattimo, Virilio, etc.).
>
>And you are certainly entitled to your critical theory perspective on B., and
>you may even be right in your negatives. 
>
>And as a concession to your non-ironic sensibility vis-a-vis consumer
culture, I
>will suspend posting my football picks here.
>
>However: football may suck, but gambling rules!
>
>Alan Shapiro
>Frankfurt, Germany
>e-mail 100143.1302-AT-compuserve.com
>
>