File spoon-archives/baudrillard.archive/baudrillard_1997/97-04-26.234, message 73


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     



   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005