Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Atheist God

can someone explain this baudrillard part?

Recommended Posts

This is the fatality of every system committed by its own logic to total perfection and therefore to a total defectiveness, to absolute infallibility and therefore irrevocable breakdown: the aim of all bound energies is their own death. This is why the only strategy is catastrophic, and not dialectical at all. Things must be pushed to the limit, where quite naturally they collapse and are inverted. At the peak of value we are closest to ambivalence, at the pinnacle of coherence we are closest to the abyss of corruption which haunts the reduplicated signs of the code. Simulation must go further than the system. Death must be played against death: a radical tautology that makes the system's own logic the ultimate weapon. The only strategy against the hyperrealist system is some form of pataphysics, `a science of imaginary solutions'; that is, a science-fiction of the system's reversal against itself at

[p. 5]

the extreme limit of simulation, a reversible simulation in a hyperlogic of death and destruction. [1]

 

The symbolic demands meticulous reversibility. Ex-terminate every term, abolish value in the term's revolution against itself: that is the only symbolic violence equivalent to and triumphant over the structural violence of the code.

 

A revolutionary dialectic corresponded to the commodity law of value and its equivalents; only the scrupulous reversion of death corresponds to the code's indeterminacy and the structural law of value. [2]

 

Strictly speaking, nothing remains for us to base anything on. All that remains for us is theoretical violence -- speculation to the death, whose only method is the radicalisation of hypotheses. Even the code and the symbolic remain terms of simulation: it must be possible to extract them, one by one, from discourse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a lot going on here, which parts of this are you understanding and which parts are you not?

 

I strongly recommend getting a background in Baudrillard, not something you can just jump on into.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm specifically interested in his concept of the Mirror - i'm pretty sure you used that card for yor alternative last year. What did you means by refract as a crystal does?

and also what he means by pataphysics - he seems very vague whe he says solutions using imagination

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting, that cleared up quite a few things

 

do you mind explaining his theories on Seduction

specifically the link between feminism and aesthetcs/beauty - if there is any

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting, that cleared up quite a few things

 

do you mind explaining his theories on Seduction

specifically the link between feminism and aesthetcs/beauty - if there is any

 

If you haven't read his book Seduction, then you should do that now (pretty easy to find .pdf online). It goes a long way in explaining these things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...