Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 10:28:50 -0800 From: Bill Bogard (remote) <bogard-AT-WPOFFICE.WHITMAN.EDU> Subject: Re: seduction-reply -Reply some thoughts in response to doug: i guess i think what seduces baudrillard is not signs, but the destruction or immolation of signs. that is, what seduces is what breaks down the order of signs, or sign-systems. i'm thinking of some of baudrillard's earlier remarks about 'theoretical violence,' but the violence of signs is a recurring theme in all his work. is what seduces itself a sign? if so, i think baudrillard is caught in a circle. i have to believe that in baudrillard seduction has an a-semiotic dimension, which is like a 'gap' in the sign-form. what is that gap? it's the 'object', or the pure event. it's where we find the ludic, the ideal game, what baudrillard calls 'witz,' etc. seduction certainly _involves_ the play of signs, but i don't think it can be assimilated to the sign-form. the 'object' or the pure event in baudrillard, at least as i see it, is neither a signifier nor a signified. second, i guess i do think we can see seduction and simulation in terms of ontological difference, although i don't know if baudrillard does. we should ask him! i take ontological 'difference' in a deleuzian sense, i.e., Being *is* difference. i think seduction is already different in nature with respect to iself, i.e., internally, and that difference is simulation. to say that, though, is not to say they have the same nature. again, these are my own wierd takes, and i don't attribute them to baudrillard. i'd like to hear others' ideas on this. bill bogard
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005