From: "Soren Pedersen" <122509816228-AT-post2.tele.dk>
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 13:41:23 +0000
Subject: Re: A possible "sellout"?


> From:          Erik Hoogcarspel <jehms-AT-globalxs.nl>
> To:            Soren Pedersen <baudrillard-AT-jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU>
> Date:          Wed, 04 Mar 1998 12:54:35 +0100
> Subject:       Re: A possible "sellout"?
> Reply-to:      baudrillard-AT-jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU


> I see no reason why B should suddenly be a na:ive realist. I think he knows
> very well that there's no Ding-an-Sich. Signs consist of signifier and
> signified, both are correlative, so the sr evokes the sd and the sd evokes the
> sr. There no sr without meaning and no sd without language. The real is not a
> thing, not a referent. We're not in reality like we're in a restaurant or like
> ash in an ashtray. Reality is the impression we have of a certain stability in
> the correlation between sr and sd, it's a kind of stickyness between both.
> This monitor screen you're looking at is what it is, by itself, you didn't
> make it up, therefore it's real. You can talk to the screen, imagining it to
> be your lover, but then the correlation between sr and sd is very loose and
> disappears if your thoughts go astray.
> 
> the referent never existed, it's another name of the signified. the split
> between signified and referent is just a cartesian trap.

The disagreement might stem from our use of terminology, but I insist 
that Baudrillard's "real" has nothing to do with the internal 
structure of the sign (Sr/Sd). What has changed with the advent of 
hyperrealism is the principle governing the signification process. 
Baudrillard: " from now on, signs are exchanged against each other 
rather than against the real" (extract from Mark's mail - "The End of 
Production",  Symbolic Exchange and Death).

>  In chapter 2 of 'L'echange symbolique et la mort', called 'The order of
> simulacra' B, gives a short description of the history of signproduction. I
> think this gives a good explanation. Before the enlightenment the signs were
> produced according to very tight social rules. Signs are then considered be a
> part of the order of things, they are natural things. With the advent of the
> 'stuc angel' most signs became copies of the natural signs, which gradually
> disappear. (Therefore signs were supposed to have a referent.) During
> modernity signs became merchandise, signproduction a part of the economic
> system and reality a product of the signs. Now we live in the metaphysics of
> the code, where signproduction is not restricted by economic laws and signs
> simulate reality by forming a structure, a code. And since the sd of a sign
> consists completely of other signs, everything is code. 'Coke is the real
> thing' just means 'Coke is the code'. The code changes very rapidly because of
> the randomness of signproduction. (I think this is enduced by a seductive
> effect of the void. The void, being the shift or gap between sr and sd,
> becomes ever more appearant and becomes a threat for the code.)
> 

A sign consisting of a signifier over a sign (Sr/Sign) - that's a 
weird sign. Are you sure about that? The stuff about the code is 
interesting. Perhaps we should discuss this more. I'm not sure that 
it is the signproduction that creates the code. It is the same as 
with the "semiotic pollution" (which I believe is an effect, not a 
cause of the loss of the "real"). Again, Is it not the other way 
around? Is it not the metaphysical code that governs signproduction? 
However, I do see your point. The endless exchange between signs does 
form a kind of structure that creates the illusion of reality. A 
politician makes a statement, the media analyses, the opposition 
criticises. They all take it seriously - it must be real.

Reading Baudrillard, I have learned that when things appear
obvious - You should be on red alert. Perhaps it makes sense to 
distinguish between codes and structures. If hyperreality resembles 
cyberspace, the codes are the first thing. First there was codes and 
everything else emanated from them (including structures).  
Therefore, I do not understand why the codes should be 
under any kind of threat. As far as I can see, the codes are 
constantly consolidating their position. The breakdowns
become rarer and rarer. Damage control becomes more and more 
effective, and all traces of the perfect crime will ultimately 
disappear. What I do see happening is a diminishing of the distance 
between codes and simulacra (i.e. the images produced by the codes). 
This was something that strucked me at a techno-party. The feeling of 
a complete fusion between the digital code of music/light and the 
self. First, signs and referents collapsed into simulacra. Now, we 
are awaiting the merging of simulacra and codes, or?

Regards, Soren