Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2001 21:46:12 +0100
Subject: Re: terror




Mal

I assume on this basis that your reading of Baudrillard is more 
positive. Explain please how to read through the 'hyperbole' and into 
meaning...

regards

sdv

Matthew Asher Levy wrote:

> Your reading of Baudrillard is the typical misunderstanding.  Few 
> people seem to know how to read hyperbole.  mal
>
>     ----- Original Message -----
>
>     From: steve.devos-AT-krokodile.com <mailto:steve.devos-AT-krokodile.com>
>
>     To: lyotard-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
>     <mailto:lyotard-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu>
>
>     Sent: Sunday, October 14, 2001 12:30 PM
>
>     Subject: Re: terror
>
>
>     Mal and All
>
>     The piece referred to below is typical Baudriallard - melancholic
>     and lost in a nostalgia for a disappeared and dead symbolic
>     (order) from which is derived the loss of meaning, the
>     transparency of events 'annihaliated on the television screen'.
>     Actually the reverse is probably true, the events of the 9/11
>     written largely on the mass-media directly impacted people and
>     from which they created their own conclusions, based on their own
>     social imaginary constructs...
>
>     There is a suggestion that terroism in the form Baudriallard
>     discusses it has 'no political impact', dissappearing perhaps in
>     the face of media saturated world into a lack of meaning.  The
>     section where he discusses the 'system' does not contradict this
>     since the system is 'extra-political', functioning as an all
>     inclusive term, that is 'checked' by terroism. As if terror is
>     simply a question... Nothing he states can halt the 'hegemonic
>     system'.... It is not the terroist act against the system which is
>     terroristic but the system itself. He wants the banality of the
>     system to be clear but his alternative is simply to awful to
>     contemplate. Curiously because it was written prior to the
>     reemergence of the theologically justified actors (terrorists) of
>     the present it seems even more dated than it did last time I
>     looked at it...
>
>     Whilst nice prose theoretically it doesn't hold together - it's
>     not even clear that he understands the way the media functions...
>     it never was.
>
>     Perhaps it's a matter of reading the events through Hannah
>     Arendt's work.
>
>     regards
>     sdv
>
>     Matthew Asher Levy wrote:
>
>>     Baudrillard Simulacra and Simulation "On Nihilism"
>>
>>         ----- Original Message -----
>>
>>         From: steve.devos-AT-krokodile.com
>>         <mailto:steve.devos-AT-krokodile.com>
>>
>>         To: lyotard-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
>>         <mailto:lyotard-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu>
>>
>>         Sent: Friday, October 12, 2001 3:34 PM
>>
>>         Subject: Re: terror
>>
>>
>>         Hugh and All
>>
>>         What is becoming increasingly interesting is the lack of
>>         serious philosophical writing on terroism. I've spent the
>>         past few days searching for interesting writing on terror and
>>         terroism and actually there is remarkably little.
>>
>>         That is not to say there is nothing on state terrorism and
>>         the terror related to the state and power. Just very little
>>         that i've identifed that directly addresses those hopeless
>>         acts of terror inflicted on a human population, such as the
>>         911 event.
>>
>>         Thoughts and suggestions anyone?
>>
>>         regards
>>         sdv
>>
>>         hbone wrote:
>>
>>>Steve wrote,
>>>
>>>>From here it seems obvious that both the terrorists and the G8 are
>>>
>>>>plainly unjust, but let me be fair - it is extremely hard to decide if
>>>>the criteria for the evaluation of whether a given act is just or
>>>>unjust, are real or not. The ethics of the situation become extremely
>>>>problematic since it is impossible to compare like for like. It is
>>>>almost as if  it is up to everyone to decide for themselves..
>>>>
>>>
>>>Agreed.
>>>
>>>Unfortunately, both religious and irreligious are hooked on sacrificial
>>>death.  That sentiment of sacrifice is at the center of Christianity as well
>>>as Bin-Laden''s  heaven-bound suicides.
>>>
>>>Hugh
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>

HTML VERSION:

Your reading of Baudrillard is the typical misunderstanding.  Few people seem to know how to read hyperbole.  mal

----- Original Message -----

From: steve.devos-AT-krokodile.com

To: lyotard-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu

Sent: Sunday, October 14, 2001 12:30 PM

Subject: Re: terror

Mal and All

The piece referred to below is typical Baudriallard - melancholic and lost in a nostalgia for a disappeared and dead symbolic (order) from which is derived the loss of meaning, the transparency of events 'annihaliated on the television screen'. Actually the reverse is probably true, the events of the 9/11 written largely on the mass-media directly impacted people and from which they created their own conclusions, based on their own social imaginary constructs...

There is a suggestion that terroism in the form Baudriallard discusses it has 'no political impact', dissappearing perhaps in the face of media saturated world into a lack of meaning.  The section where he discusses the 'system' does not contradict this since the system is 'extra-political', functioning as an all inclusive term, that is 'checked' by terroism. As if terror is simply a question... Nothing he states can halt the 'hegemonic system'.... It is not the terroist act against the system which is terroristic but the system itself. He wants the banality of the system to be clear but his alternative is simply to awful to contemplate. Curiously because it was written prior to the reemergence of the theologically justified actors (terrorists) of the present it seems even more dated than it did last time I looked at it...

Whilst nice prose theoretically it doesn't hold together - it's not even clear that he understands the way the media functions... it never was.

Perhaps it's a matter of reading the events through Hannah Arendt's work.

regards
sdv

Matthew Asher Levy wrote:

Baudrillard Simulacra and Simulation "On Nihilism"

----- Original Message -----

From: steve.devos-AT-krokodile.com

To: lyotard-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu

Sent: Friday, October 12, 2001 3:34 PM

Subject: Re: terror

Hugh and All

What is becoming increasingly interesting is the lack of serious philosophical writing on terroism. I've spent the past few days searching for interesting writing on terror and terroism and actually there is remarkably little.

That is not to say there is nothing on state terrorism and the terror related to the state and power. Just very little that i've identifed that directly addresses those hopeless acts of terror inflicted on a human population, such as the 911 event.

Thoughts and suggestions anyone?

regards
sdv

hbone wrote:

Steve wrote,

>From here it seems obvious that both the terrorists and the G8 are

plainly unjust, but let me be fair - it is extremely hard to decide if
the criteria for the evaluation of whether a given act is just or
unjust, are real or not. The ethics of the situation become extremely
problematic since it is impossible to compare like for like. It is
almost as if  it is up to everyone to decide for themselves..

Agreed.

Unfortunately, both religious and irreligious are hooked on sacrificial
death.  That sentiment of sacrifice is at the center of Christianity as well
as Bin-Laden''s  heaven-bound suicides.

Hugh