From: John Armitage <john.armitage-AT-unn.ac.uk>
Subject: RE: Baudrillard and Virilio
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 09:16:12 -0000


John, et-al,

[Kevin]

I don't actually see that much difference between JB's and PV's
diagnosis of contemporary military strategy. The differences seem to be
in how to undermine it - i.e. change the world. For Virilio, with his
modernist epistemology, the solution seems to be some form of
opposition. For Baudrillard, with his fatal epistemology, the solution
seems to be, and this is in some way very Marxist, is that there is an
internal contradiction to the logic of virtual warfare, and if pushed to
extremes, then the whole thing will implode.

[Here I think you mistake JB's position for PV's position - if you check out
the interview with JB in the back of  _Forget Foucault, you will see that JB
talks of PV's position in exactly these terms. I can't remember the page.]  

To my mind, being anti-something, that is, opposing it (op-posing: to
place against), is merely to support it, to strengthen it. Whereas
becoming immanent with it, and pushing its logic to the limit, if this
is possible, seems a more logical (JB would hate me for using that word)
solution. 

[Of course, someone like me at least, would oppose this statement! Rather
than go over it all here, for my position on this, see my far from perfect
article on CTHEORY: 'Resisting the Neo-Liberal Discourse of Technology'.
Also, check out the excellent event scene 'response' to it from 'Land
Warrior' called something like 'Edit/Splice remix.]

[john]