Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 12:47:10 -0800
From: evan-AT-steammedia.com (Evan Leeson)
Subject: Re: Seduction over simulation


>>
>>Given the opportunity and the overwhelming evidence, Baudrillard suggests
>>our most fundamental concepts and categories for ordering and comprehending
>>our individual and collective experience (the real for example) are suspect
>>and, in fact, at the root of our current problems.
>
>These are old issues. Why is B's revelation so unique?

All significant questions in philosophy are old. They are not always at the
surface or well formulated for the current era though. Baudrillard's
version is unique because it attempts to describe a particularly powerful
and recent mechanism for causing the questions to remain submerged and/or
irrelevant.

>
>
>>Reality is a sign. Crack it and try to understand what is signified, what the
>>history of it is, its
>>etymology, what the implications are for collective thinking as a result.
>>How is the sign "reality" used as a weapon in everyday discourse? How is it
>>related to ideology? How does the concept reality often stop us from coming
>>to an agreement on our experience of the world?
>
>Back to this. I don't think the sign and the experience are going to be so
>easily separated.

No, they are not easily separated. As I said before, Baudrillard is hard.

>Also, how might 10,000 concepts of reality stop us from
>coming to an agreement on our experience of the world?

I guess this is a rhetorical question, but it's not the number of concepts
of reality Baudrillard is concerned with. It's one particular concept:
reality.

>
>
>> How does the supposed
>>existence of an independent reality disenfranchise those who are told they
>>don't have the proper tools to witness it.
>
>I think you're contradicting yourself again here Evan. Just a paragraph or
>two ago there was indeed a concrete, now it's "supposed"?   Besides, that
>question would probably be better addresed to the Pope (ha ha hee hee
>etc....).  Besides, like the previous comment, this implies that an
>"independent reality" is unjust.  It may be-  but at least there is a
>possibility of addressing it. What if I had to deal with someones personal
>reality, what tools could I use to witness that?

I don't see a contradiction. Be more explicit when you reference my
previous statements and I might be able to follow you. Regarding tools, one
tool is the concept "reality". Using the concept "reality" allows us to
project the existence of an object seperate from ourselves which we can
then collectively define. The problems with this tool are the subject of
our discussion.

>
>
>>The implications of the use and
>>abuse of the sign "reality" are staggering, yet overlooked and nearly
>>impossible to address because of the naturalisation and reification
>>inherent in the way we approach it. Ask yourself: why do I need there to be
>>a real? Why am I not satisfied with sharing my "experience" with others and
>>trusting them to judge my experience fairly. Why do I need to leverage my
>>position with an appeal to something that transcends my experience? Even
>>our current portal to reality (Science) simply provides us with (frequently
>>changing) facts. It doesn't (or shouldn't according to its own method)
>>ascribe human meaning to it. Reality is an alientated component of us in
>>the form of a fantastic other world. It takes its place in a long line of
>>concepts which share two intertwined aims - leverage in discourse and
>>security in experience.
>>
>
>Serves me right I guess to end up discussing this with someone as
>shamelessly rhetorical as I am. Oh well...

That's a whole other discussion.

>> Ask yourself: why do I need there to be
>>>a real?
>
>I'd actually prefer it more if there wasn't one I think.

Interesting. I think your and Baudrillard share this desire - it's just
that his has been "realized" (!).

>
>> Why am I not satisfied with sharing my "experience" with others and
>>>trusting them to judge my experience fairly.
>
>ooh, that's a pretty thought!  It's unfortunately also a great starting
>place for rabid predjudice, quackery, buggery, flagrent injustice,
>genocide, doggycide, kittycide, and many other mean and nasty things.

Is this an answer to the question? If it is then I suppose it describes an
outcome of trusting others to judge your experience fairly. Why is this the
case? That was the question.

>
>
>>
>>How is your understanding of the theory of relativity? I'm currently
>>reading "The ABC of Relativity" by Bertrand Russell. It's hard. I suspect
>>very few people (relatively speaking) have a real grasp of it (there I go
>>using that word - see how it's used rhetorically?). Yet, The Theory of
>>Relativity is fundamentally important. If humans try to move past the
>>confines of the earth it will become indispensable. Elites have already
>>used it to do horrendous and magnificent things. It contains explanations
>>for unbeliveable facts, such as the fact that a clock on an airplane runs
>>infinitisemally slower than a clock on the ground. It describes a way to
>>measure time and space when there is no time and space like those of our
>>current reality, which itself is limited to proximate, relatively
>>stationary bodies. The reality described by The Theory of Relativity is not
>>like that of commonsense. Yet, we continue to use the commonsense version
>>in our daily estimations and decisions and it really doesn't have much of
>>an impact on our lives. The commonsense version of spaciotemporal reality
>>works. It allows us to jump over a stream and get to work on time.
>
>Unusual digression. I remember that book. I remember a few tasty bits of
>conceptual candy separated by vast expanses of migraine inducing boredom.
>That's about it. The part about the train was kind of neat. It's pretty old
>stuff. The last I heard the physics people were pushing the idea of a ten
>dimensional universe. No joke. Never found out what the extra six were for.
>
>>
>>Baudrillard is alerting us to grave implications of the commonsense version
>>of reality for the social, political and economic aspects of our lives.
>
>I'm all for that actually. I have no common sense whatsoever. I also think
>that things generally suck. But just because I don't like the proffered
>version of reality I don't go around saying reality doesn't exist. I mean,
>where would that leave me?

It would leave you in exactly the same position as if you said it did
exist. That's the point. Does/doesn't is a binary rooted in the same
conception of reality.

>
>
>>It is very difficult to deliver critique without appealing to the
>>categories and elements of the commonsense version for narrative and
>>descriptive content. Even still more difficult to get people to step out of
>>the commonsense version with you and try to think different. Thus he adopts
>>a position of indifference whenever confronted by the commonsense version
>>because of the futility of trying to confront it on its own ground. And, in
>>any case, for him it is already in an irreversible death spiral.
>
>That sounds like a copout.

Everyone chooses where they invest their time.

>
>
>>
>>In my reading of baudrillard he is not indifferent to the world if you want
>>to try to discuss things in terms of the constitution of what would
>>constitute the equivalent of a social/economic/political version of the
>>Theory of Relativity. To this point we have not discussed what that might
>>entail from a reading of his work.
>
>you're really reaching there.....

Hardly. It's a simple analogy.

>
>
>Here's what I've gotten so far: On a theoretical level B questions our
>assumptions about what we take to be real.

Wrong. Among other things, he discusses the concept "real" - how it is used.

He thinks we're in error but
>when approached on a "common sense" level he responds to questions with
>"indifference."

No, he evaluates the current situation from the outside and from the
inside. From the outside, he doesn't like it. He prefers other
possibilities. From the inside he is indifferent because it doesn't matter.
He continues to write from the inside because he hopes to draw people
outside.

Why?  Because it's just too difficult to get people to see
>his point of view, and besides, we're all doomed anyway.

It is very difficult and, yes, from the inside, we are doomed.

 Yes there are
>different ways to explain our experience and define the real. This is
>hardly a revelation.

You are correct. The existence of metaphysical, ontological, cosmological
and epistemological problems is not a revelation. Setting those problems
and question is still a very active pursuit. I have been attempting to
introduce you to how I think Baudrillard sets those problems and questions.

Yes the media has created a reality all its own that
>is totally off the deep end, but we've had that (in a sense) for thousands
>of years with theatre, myth, music, art etc., so that's not really news.

I have no idea what you are talking about here.

I
>still don't see the importance of B.  (I'm slow)

You are in very good company.

best

evan