Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 11:48:25 -0800 (PST)
From: oconnell-AT-oz.net (Mark O'Connell)
Subject: Re: few readers?


> even though I can follow the logic,
>again at the end I find myself the same ignorant guy, asking
>"But he did do a commercial, didn't he?" As if all the
>sophisticated explanations have been a little game or something,
>and now I'm back to real life...

--Sadeq.

I think that'a a very positive sign (for you)


>>Now with this for  a background Baudrillard could do a commercial
>>without fearing a "sell out" due to the fact that anyone who calls
>it a
>>"sell out" has not really understood the disapearance of the real. This
>>more simply put means that a valuation of B.'s commercial is not at all
>>possible because we all take part in the simmulation.

If I wanted to summarize your thoughts in a very simple way would it be
accurate for me to say something like: since everything is a mess already
you can't blame B for adding to it?


> Simulation is to pretend
>that you
>>have something which you don't really have. In this case to
>pretend that
>>we exist in the way our forefathers existed, and that is with
>values.
>>(This statement has greater implications...) This would then
>say that we
>>have values with which we are able to evaluate. Baudrillard
>is trying to
>>point out that something has gone wrong and because we see the
>>simulation of what we once had (valuation), we still believe,
>through
>>the simulation, that we have, that which we've lost. Wow! :-)

Are you suggesting that you are without values? That we are all without values?
Are you really not able to evaluate your values?

Mark O'Connell
oconnell-AT-oz.net

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes,
so you've got to rely on a giraffe filled with whipped cream."
-zappa