File spoon-archives/baudrillard.archive/baudrillard_1998/baudrillard.9803, message 72


Subject: debaser pt 2
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1998 13:41:13 -0700 (MST)
From: Gary Norris <garyn-AT-tatteredcover.com>


To continue, I wrote:
> > Okay, Berkeley, esse est percipi, aside, give me some sort of
> > argument for this one.  and by the way:  you better hope objects
> > exist.  I have heard enough about this perception of the subject
> > argument, give me some substance.  I would like to understand WHY
> > objects don't exist (it seems that you feel objects CAN'T exist.)
> > Give me some form of phenomenological argument, maybe.  JB is
> > wonderful at pointing to the problems with our arguments in and
> > above and for and with the world, he is a wonderful critic; however,
> > how you look at his arguments, how you look at his linguistic
> > distinctions, can totally alter what it is "he" means. In this way,
> > JB is an object.

Soren responds:
>  And I would like to 
> know how you (Gary) can be so certain of the object's existence. Your 
> anti-realism seems to rule out this kind of knowledge. Unless of 
> course, you submit to the charge discussed above, and admit of being 
> a "raving platonist". (I think that's what Rorty once called Taylor).
> 

	First, I am not so sure about anything.  I want to know why it is 
that you are?  (I asked first!!! I yell tongue in cheek.)  Second, it 
seems I am an "anti-realist" (whatever that term is supposed to mean,) 
merely because I disagree with your so-called reality check with JB's 
texts in your backpocket.


I wrote:
> > If our identities are ENTIRELY SIMULATED, then you should be able to
> > explain how we simulate our identities or how they are simulated or
> > who is running the show.  Might I make a small critique of your
> > argument?:  Taking intricate ideas-- theories that mix a post
> > Marxist cynicism with psychoanalytic and ideological criticism-- and
> > boiling them down to absolute statements such as "Our identities are
> > ENTIRELY simulated." does not serve your argument well at all.  In
> > fact it angers me, because that (your smiling snide statement) is
> > not the point.

Soren's response:
> This connects with my earlier argument. If knowledge is total it is 
> absent, and if knowledge is absent, meaning (including identity) 
> can only be based on simulation. If identities are not simulated, 
> what are they? real/true? structural? biological?

	Well, we could talk about structures for a start.  But fuzzy 
terms such as "real," "true," etc. are not a place to begin.  By saying 
"If knwledge is total it is absent," you are meaning "If knowledge is an 
absolute, if knowledge is true, then it cannot be grasped."  Is this what 
you are saying?  So if knowledge is not able to be grasped, then meaning 
is simulated.  Well, of course, I will agree with you, but only to a 
certain extent.  Life is not fractalized-- that is a move that has been 
taken too far by JB and others.  Life-- knowledge, meaning, therefore 
discourse as well-- is not busy folding in upon itself in what might be a 
move towards infinite regress.  We are not any further from truth than we 
ever were.  For us Marxists, though, our theory is need of retooling for 
the amazing leap in technology.  Technology has changed our way of 
discourse, but it has not bedazzled us to the extent that we can no 
longer see past our radiating screens which sometimes make us feel as if 
it all is some warped program we are functioning within.  

As I said before, in as many words, I have faith in the people.  You 
debase them.  I am a romantic, you, like Rorty has, are in danger of 
becoming boring.  The PHILOSOPHICAL INVESTIGATIONS is a far better 
companion than the TRACTATUS, as nik said.  I know, you don't understand.


respectfully
gary norris


   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005