Date: Tue, 03 Mar 1998 13:27:27 -0800
From: Soren Pedersen <speder-AT-post2.tele.dk>
Subject: Re: A possible "sellout"?


> 
> How could the 'real' disappear in the first place? The 'real', being a
> signified, is an effect of the signifiers, how could it disappear before the
> change of signproduction?
> 
> -erik


Saussure makes it very clear in "Course in General Linguistics" that he is 
exclusively interested in signs. The realm beyond signs is not taken into consideration 
at all. The signified is a mental idea, not an object external to the sign. The "real" 
(in the writings of B) is a property of the realm external to signs, and it is this 
realm that has been abolished with hyperreality. It is the referents (chimerical or 
not) that have been lost, not the signifieds. The latter are still among us (as 
component of signs). The difference is that these signs no longer point towards a realm 
beyond their own existence. Evan would probably argue that they never did (that signs 
are essentially intransitive), but I believe that this is main difference between 
hyperreality and other historical epochs.

Hyperreality is radical illusion. Everything that takes place is an illusion, not 
because our representations of the world make it appear as an illusion, but because the 
world-in-itself - apart from how we perceive it - is an illusion.

I'm not sure how this came about in the first place (but it is a damn good question). It 
might have something to do with late capitalism (but B would probably disagree in this). 
In order to seduce consumers, signs were accelerated to such a degree that they simply 
lost the gravitational pull towards reality.

regards, Soren