File spoon-archives/baudrillard.archive/baudrillard_1997/baudrillard.9710, message 7


Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 14:34:34 +0200
From: Nikos Gousgounis <ngousg-AT-itel.gr>
Subject: about Baudrillard


Gia sou  xenitemeno Kypriotaki !

Nikos from Athens writes to Nicos Nicolis from Nicosia

( by the way why LEYKOSIA is transcripted to Nicosia in English ? )


Panta agapoume kai voithame touw Kyprious adelphous mas

So, if you want to learn more about B for your Monday presentation
I am sending you right now all the long private correspondence that 
I had with a member of this list during last November. He was an Arab
student called Omar studying Philo as you in Toronto Canada who sent
a message to the list under the title  SOS. Then started a fruitful
dialogue with questions and answers. 
I am sending you some posts that had been sent to the list
in the beggining and a post of mine in the list too. 
Then Omar appeared and a private communication started that you cannot find
in thelist's archives. So, please focus on that.
I hope that all your questions (? or most of them ) are treated there.
If you have comments or apories please ask me. I will be on-line even
during week-end so hurry up to read this stuff right now to have time 
to put me further questions.

Here it comes ( in two parts ):

Many regards from sunny Athens to Florida ( must be sunny too)

Nikos

====================================================================Garry --
	As for Baudrillard readings, I guess I'd suggest just diving in.  
But that probably has more to do with my personal style than anything 
else: I enjoy reading Baudrillard (for example, Fatal Strategies) so I 
see no point in reading people who write about Baudrillard instead of the 
real thing.  I've enjoyed, however, reading introductions -- like the 
intro to Douglas Kellner's (our co-list member) book on Baudrillard, or 
others.  That's at least useful to get yourself situated.  It's probably 
also important to note that, while Baudrillard may be, in fact, a 
philosopher, he is also (and started out as) a "sociologue", not really 
what we usually mean by a sociologist in English but close enough.  I 
usually feel that he is in direct dialogue with people who write more 
cultural anthropology and cultural theory than philosophy per se... 
continuing, perhaps, a trend of critical thought and philosophy started 
by Nietzsche.  Thus: Bataille, Marcel Mauss, Foucault. etc.  But then again, 
that view might just be the cause of my own particular view on things: others 
might find that he is in dialogue with more "philosophical" texts.

Probably not much use, but...

Ciao,
Joshua
25/11
===================================44/==============================Julian AND ALL OTHERS

>>I think this is the crux of our discussion, as well as B's comments on
>>simulacra. *All* artists use signs and symbols ( a symbolic language ),
just >>as all novelists use words. The way a society uses symbolic
representations >>is at the heart of how it constructs the concepts it calls
'reality'.>>Perhaps if you could give me your thoughts on this, I could
comment more >>fully on 'simulacra'.

Well, I am a new member in this list dedicated to my old prof. in Nanterre
Uni.Paris
Jean Baudrillard during the heroic years 1976-1983. (It seems a long time
since then)

I had been interested in Joshua's initial quest parting from Bataille and
leading to Baudrillard. But the turning the discussion has got is also quite
close to my actual interests concerning simulation and identity formation
under post modern conditions.
Two remarks :

1/ The pluralisation of notions such as policy (politiques). ,identities and
cultures is not recent in French cultural studies but dates from the
seventies having nothing to do with postmodernism. I remember an article
that I wrote myself in 1979 on ''politiques culturelles. This pluralisation
of terms is typical in French languages and incomrehensible to non French
speaking countries. BUT recently, I notice an analogous fashion in English
and I guess that ''il s'agit'' of an influence from French that leads  to
the imitation of grammatical forms in order to seize the meaning. Now what
the meaning of that is in French it's difficult to explain in English. Once
Baudri asked in  the amphi why he uses the term simulacra instead of
simulacrum, he said that it sounds better in his ears to use the pluriel
even in Latin.

2/Concerning symbols, there are many definitions on their meanings as
connected with  culture, but I think that one proposed once by B. was
''representative cultural models that interprete the World''. Of course that
was much moire sufficient in my eyes that all the structuralist staff
(Levi-Strauss and Co). Eliasian theory on symbols was not yet published and
Turner's theory from early seventies was too much ethnological.Today, I see
that B. was prophetically  right : Symbols are made to interprete the World
but the problem is who is their real constructor.
                            TWO PROPOSALS
1/  To examine the role of Social Knowledge to that process of simulative
modern symbols. Today in the era of the end of Ideologies, S.K. seems as the
more solid construction made throught culture and possible to interprete the
World the same as symbols. If it fails all our interpretations are
phenomenal since we cannot decode information and we take them as given. But
if S.K. works it serves to the direction of decoding and evaluating info so
that some meanings can be produced. Symbols were rather the analogues of
info and we needed also S.K. to interprete or evaluate them. But Culture
under dominant ideological models had the quality at older times to'' serve
''symbols as given values and whole populations had no other choice than to
''adore''them.

2/ My second proposal to make this discussion richer is to introduce the
notion of otherness that was very popular in French ethnological Thought in
the seventies but  forgotten since then ( discours sur l'autrui ). Today
with all the extravagant mass transports, touristical gaze and leisure time
increase, the border crossing has been turned to an everyday experience and
the conception that we have for the stranger and the ''different'' is much
...different from the time of Simmel. Even Elias is out of date in this
matter. I think that old Baudrillard is the most worthy to be read by the
Anglosaxon scholars and his thought is rerally crossing borders establishing
new spaces of internationality. 

Hoping that by these means we could better approach the complex inner
meaning of our identities as influenced by recent technological innovations
( even internet that  deserves a serious sociological investigation and
hermeneutics itself... )
Nikos Gousgounis
25/11
  ============================================45/====================
Nikos (and Julian and Mark, eventually)--

	"Symbols are made to interpret the world but the problem is who 
is their real constructor" -- is this really the problem?  I don't think 
so... it is pretty clear that we are, in a way, their constructors: this 
is why these are social symbols (thus "social knowledge") -- I'm no 
devotee of Durkheim and his followers over the years (all the way to 
Victor Turner) but I will at least cede the point that symbols are 
socially constructed and that our understanding of the world (and of our 
bodies, cf Mary Douglas) is most probably derived from social 
categories.  Ooops, I'm probably going in over my head here, puisque je 
ne suis ni philosophe ni sociologue, but that's just my immediate 
reaction to your remarks.  Looking for a real constructor just seems a 
little too... Marxian for me.  Who produces ideology, symbols, culture, 
etc?  The answer seems clear: we do.  How can one individual affect it 
(and how have individuals affected it in the past?)?  That remains a 
different question, provided that we cede that an individual can affect 
it at all (if, in a framework where the identity is totally 
socially-constructed, we can talk about "individuals" at all).

	As for introducing the other, I might say, without the obvious 
example of Lacanian theory hovering over my shoulder, that we should deal 
with the self (identity) before we deal with the other.  But, with said 
theory hovering, it might be best not to advance that idea and leap on 
in, saying that we should bring the other into our discussion.  Strange 
to say, though, Nikos, that the other has been ignored recently, 
especially when Baudrillard's most recent works (La transparence du mal 
and, with Marc Guillaume, Figures d'alterite) have dealt with "the other" 
and alterity (especially radical alterity) in such direct ways!

Just a beginning...

Joshua  26/11
==============================46/===================================>>The language of some art is. Do you really think all art and artists are
>>concerned with this stuff?
>>
>>
>I think this is the crux of our discussion, as well as B's comments on
>simulacra. *All* artists use signs and symbols ( a symbolic language ), just
>as all novellists use words.

What about musicians, or visual artists working purely with color, or
abstract shape, none of them intending to represent or symbolize anything?
Will you assign a conceptual significance where it has no real business?
All art is not literary, it's not all conceptually articulate or concerned
with the world of ideas. Some art is experiential.


>The way a society uses symbolic representations
>is at the heart of how it constructs the concepts it calls 'reality'.

I think that's probably right, or in the right direction anyhow. But at the
same time it's only philosophy, and nobody doing phil up to this point has
managed to get everything into one box, 'cept maybe the Bhuddists, but they
used an un-box (ha ha). If you did get everything into one box B. would
probably call it "the end of the world" or something.  Anyway, what if you
said that social reality, or official reality, was constructed in the way
you describe, but that that isn't necessarily the only game in town?

>Perhaps if you could give me your thoughts on this, I could comment more
>fully on 'simulacra'.

fire away-all the best,

Mark O'Connell
oconnell-AT-oz.net 25/11
==============================47/====================================From:
Omar Nasim <umnasimo-AT-cc.umanitoba.ca>
To: baudrillard-AT-jefferson.village.virginia.edu
Cc: baudrillard-AT-jefferson.village.virginia.edu
Subject: HELP!!!
Sender: owner-baudrillard-AT-jefferson.village.virginia.edu
Reply-To: baudrillard-AT-jefferson.village.virginia.edu

Greetings all, 
I am a confused post-modernist, Baudrillardian-philosophical-reader.  I 
have attempted to read some of Mr. Baudrillard's books and have found 
them to contain many confusing and obscure ideas.  I think that either I 
am a very stupid classial-anylitical-philosopher, or that Baudrillard, 
intentionally advocates ambiguity and is against the French idea of clear 
and distinct ideas.  I am refering particularly to his ideas of 
simulation, simularca, hyperreality, and other real weird stuff.  I 
understand that he attempts to show that reality does not exist, rather 
only simulations of reality exist.  But how do you explain that? 
Practically speaking, everyday of my life I experience reality and real 
things. Althought, at times I do experience simulations, as in films, 
the internet, and television, and maybe Disneyland.  But these events are 
very specific times of my day, that cannot be generalized into the realm 
of my everyday life.  So what I am asking is for someone, who is kind 
enough, to elaborate, in laymans terms, what Baudrillard means by these 
dense terms, and how he justifies their use.  
Yours, Despondent, 
Omar Nasim
Dept. Philosophy.

27/11
====================================48/=============================Dear Omar

I got your SOS message but there is no need to overdramatise upon a living
modern philosopher who is not difficult at all and disposes (in the contrary
of others) a lot of good will.

I am glad for your message that gives me the chance to develop some of my
ideas as an old student of Baudrillard in the mid-seventies in Paris.
Well, to start from his most basic idea of simulation I think that in 
general terms he has right to underline the artificial character of 
our urban lives because we are really distanciated from the Nature and
our children are born in a World with no more seasonal circles and 
natural periodical phenomena. With the modern media we are constantly
wandering if all this stuff of info is real or faulse and constructed by
some commercants for profit. We consume more spectacle than real objects
and the spectacular representation of the reality substitutes this very
reality by many other minor sub-realities. We cannot really profit from 
the astonishing sum of info bombarding us even via internet ( if we are
cambled ) and we cannot produce USEFUL KNOWLEDGE and specifically social
knowledge that means applicable to our actual various social needs).
We are living rather as somnibules in a changing global World and we feel
that the early film of Ridley Scott ''Blade Runners''( 1979) with all its
famous replicas of humans , is closer to us now than in 1979. That means 
that our life-style is continouously moving to that direction.

There are some resistance sites of course but the general mentality -since
we cannot anymore speak about serious ideologies- is to live in a easy way
without targets , aims values or motivation. It is really very difficult
to inspire motivation to the Youth and interests for an Art or Science.
It seems that profits sibstituted interests. My own proposal is to return
back to the classics and re read them under new prisma.Today's philosophers
have not other hope than that.

Real social knowledge of the OTHERNESS of all the important others that 
surround us, is difficult to be established. Sentiments are declining in
an artificial world of spots and video-clip technics and our rhythms take 
the dimensions of MTV channel. 

There is much more truth in the sayings of the Ancients than to the spots
of our actualities.Your co-named Omar Kayam circulates much more important
thoughts in his rubayats even when drunk, than all the spots of T.V. during
a month ! I am not trying to reconstitute traditional forms and meanings
but I mean by that, that Baudrillard has tried to prove -and he suceeded 
in the best way- how human race can make artificial the real natural World.
In these terms, he is a kind of ecologist even if not proposing naive re-
turns to the Nature a la Rousseau. Is Baudrilard pessimist ? I think he is
but not melancholic as Deleuze who commited suicide recently.When he exag-
gerates by the declaration that the war of Gulf was never done, he is par-
tially right in the same way that Bourdieu has also declared some years ago
that the so called ''public opinion'' simply is not existing at all while
it is manipulated and pre-fabricated by special groups of interests.
It was a virtual war transmitted by CNN and we cannot believe casualties 
from any side the same as we will never believe again the damage of the 
nature presented by National Geographic and the spot with the cormoran cove-
red with oil of the Gulf ( it was a fake film from another tanker accident
as we were informed afterwards -when the war spectacle was over).

Now, in this moment T.V. is showning the commercial film ''top-gun''
with Tom Cruz and I cannot see the difference of such a film with CNN style
of transmitting the Gulf-war. I think really like Baudry that this war never
happened in the reality, it was a virtual war like the virtual communities 
made up by the recent internet networks.

Another phenomenon of our era is the weak collective memory. Facts that are
buleversing the Universe today are easily and totally forgotten till tomor-
row and this is due to the televisual style and technics of transmiting news

So, the crisis of our World is the crisis of liability and also credibility.
If we cannot trust and believe our neighbor ( some years ago the villagers
of MY COUNTRY USED TO SLEEP AT NIGHT WITH DOORS OPEN ! )we cannot trust the
stranger and we become hysterical while in eternal panic as the medium
American who consider everyone as a potential killer or abuser of children etc.
In this insecurity we are called to re examine the old values of friendship,
intimacy and love. IT IS DIFFICULT BUT IT WORTHS OUR ATTENTION BECAUSE OF 
THIS VERY DIFFICULTY. I have the impression or intuition that if something
is difficult today in a world of ''easy-ness'' then it is worthy of a 
survalue.

Excuse me if I am a little afar from Baudrillard's writings , but you ...
have to .. believe me ( and trust me ) that his real intention are to de-
monstrate all these reflections grosso-modo.

I don't know if my message happened to help you in something , but this was
a general outline addressed to a philosopher and since I am a sociologist
maybe I will be able now to respond to more specified questions if you 
want to formulate them.

Best regards from sunny Athens

  27/11
===========================49/==================================From: Bob hitching <hitching-AT-citizen.infi.net>
Organization: InfiNet
To: baudrillard-AT-jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU
Subject: Re: HELP!!!
References: <Pine.SOL.3.91.961127104849.396A-100000-AT-toliman.cc.umanitoba.ca>
Sender: owner-baudrillard-AT-jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU
Reply-To: baudrillard-AT-jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU

Omar Nasim wrote:
> 
> Greetings all,
> I am a confused post-modernist, Baudrillardian-philosophical-reader. I
> have attempted to read some of Mr.Baudrillard's books and have found
> them to contain many confusing and obscure ideas. I think that either I
> am a very stupid classical-analytical-philosopher,or that Baudrillard,
> intentionally advocates ambiguity and is against the French idea of clear
> and distinct ideas.

Since when have the French ever been accused having clear and distinct ideas?
I would suggest that ambiguity, from a non French perspective, is in actuali
ty the motif of Baudrillard and Lyotard. I have struggled enormously to unra
vel their writings but I wonder if it is not in fact that the nuance of what
they are saying get's lost in the translation. Those who read it in the 
French may see it differently.It is like when I read Baudrillard that I
think this man really does have something and I can feel instinctively that
it is authentic and not metaphysical flatulence, but then I stumble into a 
mine field of concepts that seem quazi dada.

What to do?

Bob

Bob and Nancy Hitching
Gaudium et specs, luctus et angor
hominum huius temporis

27/11
======================50/==========================================From: "bb130-AT-lafn.org" <bb130-AT-lafn.org>
To: "'baudrillard-AT-jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU'"
	 <baudrillard-AT-jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU>
Subject: RE: HEL!!!
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 12:28:07 -0000
Sender: owner-baudrillard-AT-jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU
Reply-To: baudrillard-AT-jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU

	It's not that only representations of reality exist, but that
 inquiry of a discursive character can only refer in a real way with such
 representations...
	Michael Herrin FBK Berkeley '77
Attachment Converted: C:\INTERNET\EUDORA\REHEL!!!
27/11
==========================51/=======================================nicos,

couldn't get the movie to work.

Mark O'Connell
oconnell-AT-oz.net

28/11
=====================================52/===========================Mark

>> could't get the movie to work

I really don't catch the meaning of that negation
Nikos
28/11
====================================53/=============================>From bb130-AT-lafn.org  Thu Nov 28 22:38:28 1996
From: "bb130-AT-lafn.org" <bb130-AT-lafn.org>
To: "'ngousg-AT-itel.gr'" <ngousg-AT-itel.gr>
Subject: Postmodern Civics
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 1996 11:33:07 -0000

	Yes, the writings of the ancients bespeak an awareness of self lacking in
the Spectacle.  I'm a student of pedagogy-- what's up w/PIA?
	M     28/11
=====================54/=========================================From: "J. Cruz" <jcruz-AT-blue.weeg.uiowa.edu>

I received this message but the attachment that came with it was not 
readable in any format. Wouldyou please resend it. Thanks.
27/11
==========================55/===================================  
Before I begin, I would like to thankyou very much for your response to my
desperate plea for knowledge of Baudrillard.  I am thrilled that I've got a
Student of Baudrillard actually e-mailing me, so if you don't mind I would
love to keep this comunication active.  Below I go through your letter to me
and try to ask you and myself, certain questions of a philosopical and maybe
sociological nature.

1/	This may seem very stupid, but why is it a urban phenonmena, or am i just
misunderstanding what you've stated.  Are our lives actually artificial, if
so, how would Baudrillard (B) justify this claim.  I see you attempt to do
this, but from a philosophical perspective, rather than a
socio-geolographical one.


> With the modern media we are constantly
> wandering if all this stuff of info is real or faulse and constructed by
> some commercants for profit. We consume more spectacle than real objects
> and the spectacular representation of the reality substitutes this very
> reality by many other minor sub-realities.
	
2/    How are sub-realities defined in B's terms, and what role do they 
play, if any, in B's system.  It also seems as if B is creating a 
criticism of capitalism, is this because he may have Marxist tendencies? 
Are simulations and "hypereality" capitalist phenonmena???  And by the way,
what is "hyperreality", is just  mixed-up and obscured reality? 
plz explain....this will give you a chance to sharpen your skills!! :)

> We cannot really profit from 
> the astonishing sum of info bombarding us even via internet ( if we are
> cambled ) and we cannot produce USEFUL KNOWLEDGE and specifically social
> knowledge that means applicable to our actual various social needs).
> We are living rather as somnibules in a changing global World and we feel
> that the early film of Ridley Scott ''Blade Runners''( 1979) with all its
> famous replicas of humans , is closer to us now than in 1979. That means 
> that our life-style is continuasly moving to that direction.
> 
3/   Interesting, I will have to watch this movie!!....

>There are some resistance sites of course but the general mentality -since
>we cannot anymore speak about serious ideologies- is to live in a easy way
>without targets , aims, values or motivation. It is really very difficult
>to inspire motivation to the Youth and interests for an Art or Science.

4/    Why is it easy to live with out "targets" and "motivations".  I 
don't understand this...And why is it not possible to "speak about 
serious ideologies"...is it b/c postmodernism allows for all to be "true"??

>It seems that profits sibstituted interests. My own proposal is to return
>back to the classics and re read them under new prisma.Today's philosophers
>have not other hope than that.
	
5/  IS this not subjectifing OUR view of the "postmodern reality" 
upon the classics??  And how can they help us when Grand-Narratives are NOT
possible??  Would the classics not become a grand-narrative if this was done....

> 
> Real social knowledge of the OTHERNESS of all the important others that 
> surround us, is difficult to be established. Sentiments are declining in
a artificial world of spots and video-clip technics and our rhythms take the
> dimensions of MTV channel.

6/	"Otherness"...are these not important to the understand of OUR 
world, of our reality?? the REAL reality?? Do we not define ourselves by the
OTHER??....OR is our defination of ourselves created by MTV and sports?  
 
> 
> There is much more truth in the sayings of the Ancients than to the spots
>of our actualities. Your co-named Omar Kayam circulates much more important
>thoughts in his rubayats even when drunk, than all the spots of T.V. during
>a month ! I am not trying to reconstitute traditional forms and meanings
>but I mean by that , that Baudrillard has tried to prove -and he suceeded 
>in the best way- how human race can make artificial the real natural World.
>In these terms, he is a kind of ecologist even if not proposing naive re-
>turns to the Nature a la Rousseau. 

7/	What does he say about all this...Is it Good or Bad?? Or, does he 
even have a theory of ethics and morality??  If he is not proposing a 
return to the Nature, then what he is proposing??  Proposing something,
usually presupposes ethics and morality?? If he does not have them (ethics
and morality) then he seems to have a problem??  Or am i just totaly
misunderstanding this whole thing.  And yes i have to agree with you, Omar
Khayam is very enlightening....But then again, even Homer Simpson is very
enlightening compared to all the rest of the gones on tv.

>Is Baudrilard pessimist ? I think he is
>but not melancholic as Deleuze who commited suicide recently.When he exag-
>gerates by the declaration that the wear of Gulf was never done, he is par-
>tially right in the same way that Bourdieu has also declared some years ago
>that the so called ''public opinion'' simply is not existing at all while
>it is manipulated and pro-fabricated by special groups of interests.
>It was a virtual war transmitted by CNN and we cannot believe casualties 
>from any side the same as we will never believe again the damage of the 
>nature presented by National Geographic and the spot with the cormoran cove-
>red with oil of the Gulf ( it was a fake film from another tanker accident
>as we were informed afterwords -when the war spectacle was over).
>Now, in this moment T.V. is showning the commercial film ''top-gun''
>with Tom Cruz and I cannot see the difference of such a film with CNN style
>oftransmitting the Gulf-war. I think really like Baudry that this war never
>happened in the reality, it was a virtual war like the virtual communities 
>made up by the recent internet networks.

8/	IS this not scary?? Or am I just a whimp?  If all these events 
are not real, then what is?  The Gulf-war, if it was not real, then what 
sorts of help may I provide them, for their "apparent" suffering?  If i 
don't believe its real, and it is, then I am allowing for tyranny to rule 
the earth, and I, just sit around and say, "ah, its not real"....This 
seems as if humanity, or B, has given up on the goodness of the human race.
And, if we do not realize that some of the things in the world ARE REAl,
then no one will actually try to rectify the situation.  It seems as if
Grand-Laziness has sort of set in upon the "Modern" Man....I guess we are
only, and truly are, a One-Dimensional Man....Virtual Communities...I
understand...but what do they have to do with Real Communities...

> 
 Another phenomenon of our era is the weak collective memory. Facts that are
 buleversing the Universe today are easily and totally forgotten till tomor-
row and this is due to the televisual style and technics of transmiting news
> 
9/ Yes very true...I agree...How does this fit into B's theories...

>So, the crisis of our World is the crisis of liability and also credibility.
>If we cannot trust and believe our neighbor ( some years ago the villagers
>of MY COUNTRY USED TO SLEEP AT NIGHT WITH DOORS OPEN ! )we cannot trust the
>stranger and we become hysterical while in eternal panic as the medium Ame-
>rican who consider everyone as a potential killer or abuser of children etc.
>In this insecurity we are called to re examine the old value of friendship,
>intimacy and love. IT IS DIFFICULT BUT IT WORTHS OUR ATTENTION BECAUSE OF 
>THIS VERY DIFFICULTY. I have the impression or intuition that if something
>is difficult today in a world of ''easy-ness'' then it is worthy of a 
>sur-value.
> 
10/  I agree...Life has become a great big panic thing...And I 
understand that there are sociological implications of this, but what are
the philosophical implications?? Is there, or can there be something like a
panic-philosophy, does B suggest anything of this sort?  Love, intimacy,
friendship sort of have a common thread; aesthetics..what role does
Aesthetics play in B's little discourse, if any?  Is aesthetics even
possible in such a "panic" world...is aesthetics possible when reality is
ultered?? Is our very act of simulation, an aesthetic act?  Or is B's
philosophy anti-aesthetic, as I have heard some suggest....?

	
> Excuse me if I am a little afar from Baudrillard's writings , but you ...
> have to .. believe me ( and trust me ) that his real intention are to de-
> monstrate all these reflections grosso-modo.
> 
> I don't know if my message happened to help you in something ,but this was
> a general outline addressed to a philosopher and since I am a sociologist
> maybe I will be able now to respond to more specified questions if you 
> want to formulate them.

Again, I would like to thankyou for your time, and your help....
Yours, 
Omar Nasim
Dept. Philosophy
UofM

29/11

TO BE CONTINUED


   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005