Atheist God 7 Report post Posted September 29, 2011 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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lemur 492 Report post Posted September 29, 2011 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. 1 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Atheist God 7 Report post Posted September 29, 2011 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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lemur 492 Report post Posted October 1, 2011 http://www.mediafire.com/?27ldvzh8975wwt8 Thats the card in question - I added a bunch of analysis in comments that should answer your questions. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Atheist God 7 Report post Posted October 1, 2011 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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lemur 492 Report post Posted October 6, 2011 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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
