File spoon-archives/baudrillard.archive/baudrillard_1998/baudrillard.9803, message 77


From: "Soren Pedersen" <speder-AT-post2.tele.dk>
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 11:07:17 +0000
Subject: Marxism, etc.


> soren / debaser

Just looking up "debaser" in my dictionary.... hoping for a positive 
content....  Gee, Gary, that's not very nice.

> Some Marxists still believe in revolution.

I have a friend who is writing a dissertation on the genealogy of the 
concept of revolution. It is his feeling that this concept has 
metamorphosed into a hyperreal form. This doesn't rule out - might 
actually improve the prospect (of) - a possible manifestation of the 
concept in existential reality,  but it would be a hysterical 
commercialized event - and Marx would spin in his grave. If you have 
the time, I would really like to hear more on revolution (when, how, 
strategy, literature, etc.).

> Eric has a much better grasp, I think, of what semiotics is than 
> you.

Without the slightest doubt. I would like to add that the science of
semiology is firmly embedded in what Baud would call the "order of
representation". Erik's remark that we should NOT give up "the
struggle for authenticity" reveals that the vitality of semiology and 
its focus on the connotative pollution is ultimately nourished by an 
illusory belief in denotative meanings. Nietzsche recommended us to 
"continue dreaming knowing that you are dreaming", but I find it hard 
to practise this kind of self-deception.

> Why do you continually replace "knowledge" for "meaning?"  I mean, 
> it certainly seems that for you "knowledge" and "meaning" are 
> interchangeable.  (They aren't you know.)  I see it twice above, not  
> explicity, but implicitly.  Poetry means something, knowledge is not  
> necessary.

> There are many things that have no meaning - more than have a
> meaning. this is because there isn't just one code

The play between knowledge (truth) and meaning (power) is what 
Foucault is all about. These concepts have now imploded into each 
other and formed the simulacrum.
The concept knowledge only makes sense if it can be dinstinguished 
from non-knowledge, and - once more - this is what has become 
impossible in hyperreality. When knowledge ceases to be a
meaningful term, when the whole foundation, the condition of 
possibility, of the production of meaning ceases to meaningful - 
meaning in general ceases to be meaningful.

Baud:

"And, indeed, the main objection to reality is its propensity to 
submit unconditionally to every hypothesis you can make about it..
You can subject it .. to the most cruel torments, the most obscene 
provocations, the most paradoxical insinuations. It submits to 
everything with unrelenting servility. Reality is a bitch." (Perfect 
Crime, p. 5).

I find this to be an extremely accurate description of the world we 
live in. This is indeed a "discourse folded in upon itself", a total
meltdown of the difference between signs and referents.

>  JB has mesmerized you.

Seduced might be more accurate term.

> Hyperreality does not, cannot, and must not exist.  It is 
> imaginary.  Sorry.  You might fantasize about hyperreality in the place 
> in which you live, but a good portion of this earth still lives in a real 
> puddle of shit.

Sigh.... always this Christopher Norris inspired critique. I'll let 
Baud speak:

"But the good apostles come back and ask: how can you take away the
real from those who already find it hard to live and who, just like
you and me, have a right to claim the real and the rational? The same
insidious objection is proclaimed in the name of the Third World: How
can you take away abundance when some people are starving to death? Or
perhaps: How can you take away the class struggle from all the peoples
that never got to enjoy their Bourgeois revolution? Or again: How can
you take away the feminist and egalitarian aspirations from all the
women that have never heard of women's rights? If you don't like
reality, please do not make everybody else disgusted with it! This is
a question of democratic morality: Do not let Billancourt despair!1
You can never let people despair. 

There is a profound disdain behind these charitable intentions. This
disdain first lies in the fact that reality is instituted as a sort of
life-saving insurance, or as a perpetual concession, as if it were the
last of human rights or the first of everyday consumer products. But,
above all, by acknowledging that people place their hope in reality
only, and in the visible proof of their existence, by giving them a
realism reminiscent of St. Sulpice, they are depicted as naive and
idiotic. This disdain, let us acknowledge it, is first imposed on
themselves by these defenders of realism, who reduce their own life to
an accumulation of facts and proofs, of causes and effects. After all,
a well-structured resentment always stems from one's own experience" 
(Radical Thought, from CTHEORY).

> > 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.

We're approaching 1 May (spiced up by the 150 years anniversary of 
the Manifesto), and I'm arranging a party on this historical day. 
Thinking about inviting you. A Real Marxist - what a scoop. Well, I 
might even consider myself a marxist (minus communism). It was - 
after all - by reading Jameson that my interest in Baud was awaken.

It's not that knowledge cannot be grasped. It's actually the exact 
opposite. Knowledge is everywhere and this is the ultimate proof of 
it non-existence. Real knowledge has disappeared and its simulated 
hallucinary "same" has taken up its place.

> 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.

Do you think that Marx considered himself a romantic? In my opinion, 
this kind of self-confession, what Baud calls a reality-show (I 
imagine you on the Ricky Lake show disclosing your romantic identity, 
people clapping, etc.) says a lot about the hyperreal state of 
Marxism today.

Wittgenstein's Investigations is certainly a great book. I'm just 
fascinated with the secrets of the Tractatus, the "whereof we cannot 
speak, thereof we must be silent" (T 7) compared to the 
Investigations' (and Baudrillard's) transcendent and boring 
"everything lies open to view there is nothing to explain" (I 126).

> identities are definitly manufactured, but does this mean that they
> are simulated? if we don't believe that there is a real that we are
> simulating (or if the construction of identity doesn't worry itself
> with metaphysics at all), then can identity be a simulation? can't
> it just be a symbolic construction? is every word a simulation, or
> does simulation only exist in the absense left by the reality
> principle?

When manufacturing is based on digitality (the code) and not a real 
original, I would say it's simulated. Of course, we're witnessing a 
discursive struggle between production and simulation, but in my 
view, simulation is about to win.

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005