Jump to content
Miro

Baudrillard Answers

Recommended Posts

I will trade fairly heavily for answers to Baudrillard. I would prefer if these answers were from a critical as opposed to policy perspective. By this I mean I am not interested in cards contextualizing your "framework" arguments to Baudrillard, or how you should value extinction impacts first.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Baudrillard is a fuck

BALSAS, 2006 [BALSAS is an interdisciplinary journal on media culture.  Interview with Art Group BBM, “on first cyborgs, aliens and other sides of new technologies,†translated from lithiuanian http://www.balsas.cc/modules.php?name=News&file=print&sid=151]

 

Valentinas: We all know that Jean Baudrillard did not believe that the Gulf War did take place, as it was over-mediated and over-simulated. In fact, the Gulf War II is still not over, and Iraq became much more than just a Frankenstein laboratory for the new media, technology and “democracy†games. What can we learn from wars that do not take place, even though they cannot be finished? Are they becoming a symptom of our times as a confrontation between multiple time-lines, ideologies and technologies in a single place?

Lars: Actually, it has always been the same: new wars have been better test-beds for the state of art technologies and the latest computer-controlled firearms. The World War I already was a fully mechanized war where pre-robots were fighting each other and gassing the troops. And afterwards, the winners shape the new world order.

Olaf: Who on hell is Baudrillard? The one who earns money by publishing his prognoses after the things happen? What a fuck, French philosophy deals too much with luxury problems and elegantly ignores the problem itself. It’s no wonder, this is the colonizer’s mentality, you can hear it roaring in their words: they use phrases made to camouflage genocide.

I went to see that Virilio’s exhibition "Ce qui arrive" at Foundation Cartier in 2003. I was smashed by that banal presentation of  the evil of all kinds: again, natural catastrophes and evil done by man were exposed on the same wall, glued together with a piece of "theory". There you find it all, filed up in one row: the pure luxury of the Cartier-funded Jean Nouvel building, an artwork without any blood in its veins, and that late Christian philosophy about the techno-cataclysm being the revenge of God. Pure shit, turned into gold in the holy cellars of the modern alchemists’ museums.

The artist-made video "documents" of the Manhattan towers opposed to Iraqian war pictures: that’s not Armageddon, that’s man-invented war technology to be used to subdue others. And there is always somebody who pushes the buttons, even when the button is a computer mouse some ten thousand kilometers away from the place where people die, or even if it is a civil airplanes redirected by Islamists. Everybody knows that. War technology has always been made to make killing easier. And to produce martyrs as well.

Janneke: Compare Baudrillard with Henry Dunant, the founder of the International Committee of the Red Cross. Dunant was no philosopher, he was just an intelligent rich man in the late 19th century. But his ideas went far more in the direction where you should hope to find philosophers as well. He experienced war as a "randonneur": he passed by, he saw the suffering and the inhumanity of war. And he felt obliged to act. Apart from the maybe 10 days he spent on the battlefield, on the beautiful meadows in the Europeans Alps, helping wounded people to survive, as a complete medical layman he decided to do something more sustainable against these odds. He knew that his efforts couldn’t prevent war in general, but he felt that he could alter the cruelty of reality. And he succeeded in doing it. No wonder that in our days we find the most engaged people to support the TROIA projects intention in Geneva, where they are still based. And they are not only doing their necessary surgeon’s work in the field: they are as well fighting with the same energy on the diplomatic battlefield.

 

 

That's all you need

 

 

(this is coming from a baudrillard hack btw)

This helped me a lot thanks!! :)

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First, Baudrillard's work is a longing for a romanticized past that cannot escape his own criticisms—they, too, were simulacra.

Massumi 87, Brian, Political philosopher and social theorist, with a PhD in French literature from Yale, “The Simulacrum according to Deleuze and Guattariâ€, 1987.

(http://www.anu.edu.au/HRC/first_and_last/works/realer.htm.) Accessed 7/14/12.

 

This cannot be done by whining. The work of Baudrillard is one long lament. Both linear and dialectical causality no longer function, therefore everything is indetermination. The center of meaning is empty, therefore we are satellites in lost orbit. We can no longer act like legislator-subjects or be passive like slaves, therefore we are sponges. Images are no longer anchored by representation, therefore they float weightless in hyperspace. Words are no longer univocal, therefore signifiers slip chaotically over each other. A circuit has been created between the real and the imaginary, therefore reality has imploded into the undecidable proximity of hyperreality. All of these statements make sense only if it is assumed that the only conceivable alternative to representative order is absolute indetermination, whereas indetermination as he speaks of it is in fact only the flipside of order, as necessary to it as the fake copy is to the model, and every bit as much a part of its system. Baudrillard's framework can only be the result of a nostalgia for the old reality so intense that it has difformed his vision of everything outside of it. He cannot clearly see that all the things he says have crumbled were simulacra all along: simulacra produced by analyzable procedures of simulation that were as real as real, or actually realer than real, because they carried the real back to its principle of production and in so doing prepared their own rebirth in a new regime of simulation. He cannot see becoming, of either variety. He cannot see that the simulacrum envelops a proliferating play of differences and galactic distances. What Deleuze and Guattari offer, particularly in A Thousand Plateaus, is a logic capable of grasping Baudrillard's failing world of representation as an effective illusion the demise of which opens a glimmer of possibility. Against cynicism, a thin but fabulous hope--of ourselves becoming realer than real in a monstrous contagion of our own making.

 

 

Second, While we can fundamentally agree with the ideas of the simulacra and simulacrum, we reject the negativism of Baudrillard, embracing instead an alternative approach to cultural analysis.

Massumi 87, Brian, Political philosopher and social theorist, with a PhD in French literature from Yale, “The Simulacrum according to Deleuze and Guattariâ€, 1987.

(http://www.anu.edu.au/HRC/first_and_last/works/realer.htm.) Accessed 7/14/12.

 

There is a seductive image of contemporary culture circulating today. Our world, Jean Baudrillard tells us, has been launched into hyperspace in a kind of postmodern apocalypse. The airless atmosphere has asphyxiated the referent, leaving us satellites in aimless orbit around an empty center. We breathe an ether of floating images that no longer bear a relation to any reality whatsoever.1 That, according to Baudrillard, is simulation: the substitution of signs of the real for the real.2 In hyperreality, signs no longer represent or refer to an external model. They stand for nothing but themselves, and refer only to other signs. They are to some extent distinguishable, in the way the phonemes of language are, by a combinatory of minute binary distinctions.3 But postmodernism stutters. In the absence of any gravitational pull to ground them, images accelerate and tend to run together. They become interchangeable. Any term can be substituted for any other: utter indetermination.4 Faced with this homogeneous surface of syntagmatic slippage, we are left speechless. We can only gape in fascination.5 For the secret of the process is beyond our grasp. Meaning has imploded. There is no longer any external model, but there is an immanent one. To the syntagmatic surface of slippage there corresponds an invisible paradigmatic dimension that creates those minimally differentiated signs only in order for them to blur together in a pleasureless orgy of exchange and circulation. Hidden in the images is a kind of genetic code responsible for their generation.6 Meaning is out of reach and out of sight, but not because it has receded into the distance. It is because the code has been miniaturized. Objects are images, images are signs, signs are information, and information fits on a chip. Everything reduces to a molecular binarism. The generalized digitality of the computerized society.7 And so we gape. We cannot be said to be passive exactly, because all polarity, including the active/passive dichotomy, has disappeared. We have no earth to center us, but we ourselves function as a ground--in the electrical sense.8 We do not act, but neither do we merely receive. We absorb through our open eyes and mouths. We neutralize the play of energized images in the mass entropy of the silent majority. It makes for a fun read. But do we really have no other choice than being a naive realist or being a sponge? Deleuze and Guattari open a third way. Although it is never developed at length in any one place, a theory of simulation can be extracted from their work that can give us a start in analyzing our cultural condition under late capitalism without landing us back with the dinosaurs or launching us into hypercynicism.

 

 

Third, Yet, Instead of fighting the simulation of reality, we should embrace it. When multiple terms are in a process of replication and modeling, they become permanently changed. This enables the creation of a new world, shaped by our discourses and perspectives.

Massumi 87, Brian, Political philosopher and social theorist, with a PhD in French literature from Yale, “The Simulacrum according to Deleuze and Guattariâ€, 1987.

(http://www.anu.edu.au/HRC/first_and_last/works/realer.htm.) Accessed 7/14/12.

 

In A Thousand Plateaus, Deleuze and Guattari invent a vocabulary enabling them to discuss both modes of simulation without lapsing into the terminology of representation. The key concept is double becoming. There are always at least two terms swept up in a fabulous process that transforms them both.21David Cronenberg's film, The Fly, presents an instance of this, although a failed one. A scientist named Brundle accidentally splices himself with a fly as he is experimenting with a machine that can dematerialize objects and transport them instantly to any chosen location, in defiance of gravity and Newtonian physics generally. When the accident occurs, Brundle does not so much become fly, nor the fly human. Rather, certain properties or potentials of both combine in a new and monstrous amalgation: a Brundle-Fly that can walk on walls and think and speak well enough to describe itself as the world's first "insect politician." It tries to purify itself of the fly in it by repeating the process backwards, but only succeeds in combining with the machinery itself. In limitative or negative becoming as portrayed in Vendémiare, one of the terms is an abstract identity and the body in question must curtail its potentials in order to fit into the grid, or at least appear to. In nonlimitative or positive becoming, as in The Fly, both terms are on the same level: rather than looking perpendicularly up or down, one moves sideways toward a another position on the grid for which one was not destined, toward an animal, a machine, a person of a different sex or age or race, an insect, a plant. The fabulatory process, though as abstract as subatomic physics, is immanent to the world of the things it affects, and is as real as a quark.22The transporting machine is on the same plane as the terms it combines. Its operating principle dips into that world's quantum level, into its pool of virtuality, to create an as yet unseen amalgamation of potentials. It produces a new body or territory from which there is no turning back. The only choice is to keep on becoming in an endless relay from one term to the next until the process either makes a breakthrough or exhausts its potential, spends its fuel, and the fabulous animal dies. Likening this to interplanatary space can be misleading: there is nothing farther from free-floating weightlessness than this. There is no such thing as total indetermination. Every body has its own propulsion, its own life force, its own set of potentials defining how far it can go. And it moves in a world filled with the obstacles thrown down by sedimentations of preexisting simulations of the "real" persuasion. There is no generalized indetermination, but there are localized points of undecidability where man meets fly. The goal is to reach into one's world's quantum level at such a point and, through the strategic mimickry of double becoming, combine as many potentials as possible. Deleuze and Guattari, of course, are not suggesting that people can or should "objectively" become insects. It is a question of extracting and combining potentials, which they define as abstract relations of movement and rest, abilities to affect and be affected: abstract yet real. The idea is to build our own transporting machine and use it to get a relay going and to keep it going, creating ever greater and more powerful amalgamations and spreading them like a contagion until they infect every identity across the land and the point is reached where a now all-invasive positive simulation can turn back against the grid of resemblance and replication and overturn it for a new earth. Deleuze and Guattari insist on the collective nature of this process of becoming, even when it is seemingly embodied in a solitary artist. Revolutionary or "minor"23 artists marshal all of the powers of the false their community has to offer. They create a working simulation that may then reinject itself into society like Feuillade's wine assemblage, but to very different, though perhaps equally intoxicating, effect.

 

 

Here’s our alternative:

A.J. turns to the guests. "Cunts, pricks, fence straddlers, tonight I give you -- that internationalknown¶ impressario of blue movies and short-wave TV, the one, the only, The Great Slashtubitch!"¶ He points to a red velvet curtain sixty feet high. Lightning rends the curtain from top to bottom. On Screen. Red-haired, green-eyed boy, white skin with a few freckles... kissing a thin brunette

girl in slacks.¶ When I become death, death is the seed from which I grow.¶ Intelligence and war are games, perhaps the only meaningful games left. If any player becomes too proficient, the game is threatened with termination.¶ Mary: "No, let me." She locks her hands behind Johnny's buttocks, puts her forehead against¶ him, smiling into his eyes she moves back, pulling him off the platform into space.... His face swells¶ with blood.... Mark reaches up with one lithe movement and snaps Johnny's neck... sound like a¶ stick broken in wet towels. the vast¶ cancers that surgery and Xrays C¶ In the United States the Americi¶ is considered well worth our feet. . .¶ A shudder runs down Johnny's body... one foot flutters like a trapped¶ bird.... Mark has draped himself over a swing and mimics Johnny's twitches, closes his eyes and¶ sticks his tongue out.... Johnny's cock springs up and Mary guides it up her cunt, writhing against him¶ in a fluid belly dance, groaning and shrieking with delight... sweat pours down her body, hair hangs¶ over her face in wet strands. "Cut him down, Mark," she screams. ¶ Death needs time for what it kills to grow in.¶ No one owns life, but anyone who can pick up a frying pan owns death¶ Mark reaches over with a snap¶ knife and cuts the rope, catching Johnny as he falls, easing him onto his back with Mary still impaled¶ and writhing.... She bites away Johnny's lips and nose and sucks out his eyes with a pop.... She tears¶ off great hunks of cheek.... Now she lunches on his prick.... Mark walks over to her and she looks¶ up from Johnny's half-eaten genitals, her face covered with blood, Ociety racks up the score like¶ sons will become new cancer pee¶ a third of them. . .¶ eyes phosphorescent.... Mark¶ puts his foot on her shoulder and kicks her over on her back.... He leaps on her, fucking her¶ insanely... they roll from one end of the room There is no intensity of love or feeling that does not involve the risk of crippling hurt. It is a duty to take this risk, to love and feel without defense or reserve.¶ Cut word lines — Cut music lines — Smash the control images — Smash the control machine — Burn the books — Kill the priests — Kill! Kill! Kill!¶ to the other, pinwheel end-over-end and leap high in¶ the air like great hooked fish.¶ "Let me hang you, Mark.... Let me hang you.... Please, Mark, let me hang you!"¶ "Sure baby." He pulls her brutally to her feet and pins her hands behind her.¶ "No, Mark!! No! No! No,"¶ Its so hard to remember in the world - - Weren’t you there? Dead so you¶ think of ports - - Couldn’t reach flesh - - Might have to reach flesh from¶ anybody - - ¶ under the Red Masters¶ for strange dawn words of color exalting their¶ satellite in a ¶ Gold and perfumes of light city red stone¶ she screams, Who Controls The Control Men shitting and pissing in terror as he drags her to the¶ platform. He leaves her tied on the platform in a pile of old used condoms, while he adjusts the rope¶ across the room... and comes back carrying the noose on a silver tray. He jerks her to her feet and¶ tightens the noose. Controls Men Control Who The He sticks his cock up her and waltzes around the platform and off into space¶ swinging in a great arc.... "Wheeeeee!" he screams, turning into Johnny. Her neck snaps. A These individuals are marked foe. . . Nothing exists until or unless it is observed. An artist is making something exist by observing it. And his hope for other people is that they will also make it exist by observing it. I call it 'creative observation'.¶ Turgid itch and the perfume of death¶ On a whispering south wind¶ A smell of abyss and of nothingness¶ Dark Angel of the wanderers howls through the loft¶ With sick smelling sleep¶ great fluid wave undulates through her body. Johnny drops to the floor and And i will depart stands poised and alert like a¶ young animal.¶ He leaps about the room. With a scream of longing that shatters the glass wall he leaps out into¶ space. Control Who The Men Controls Masturbating end-over-end, three thousand feet down, his sperm floating beside him, he¶ screams all the way against the shattering blue of sky, the rising sun burning over his body like¶ gasoline, down past great oaks and persimmons, swamp cypress and mahogany, to shatter in liquid¶ relief in a ruined square paved with limestone. Weeds falling on my face impending attack and vines grow between the stones, I am getting so far out one day I won't come back at all.Bureaus die when the structure of the state collapse. They are as helpless and unfit for independent existence as a displaced tapeworm, or a virus that has killed the host.and rusty¶ iron bolts three feet thick penetrate the white stone, stain it shit-brown of rust. Truth is used to vitalize a statement rather than devitalize it. Truth implies more than a simple statement of fact. "I don't have any whisky," may be a fact but it is not a truth. Mary, Johnny and Mark take a bow with the ropes around their necks. They are not as young¶ as they appear in the Blue Movies.... They look tired and petulant.)

Edited by georgebushsdogpaintings

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(jon's deleuze/burroughs k of baudry affs

 

Dancing in the corpse of language doesn't help most affirmatives answer Baudrillard critiques - no link and it links harder to the aff (plus there's a performative alt, so it wouldn't make much sense).

 

What I'd be really interested in is someone's analysis of the popular Baudrillard cards that are usually read as their own off-case against both policy and kritikal affs. Or even neg block extensions for those arguments so I can understand what they're supposed to mean and how they're supposed to interact without blindly guessing or loading up non-responsive 2AC cards.

Edited by dancon25
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dancing in the corpse of language doesn't help most affirmatives answer Baudrillard critiques - no link and it links harder to the aff (plus there's a performative alt, so it wouldn't make much sense).

 

What I'd be really interested in is someone's analysis of the popular Baudrillard cards that are usually read as their own off-case against both policy and kritikal affs. Or even neg block extensions for those arguments so I can understand what they're supposed to mean and how they're supposed to interact without blindly guessing or loading up non-responsive 2AC cards.

Specifically doesn't work in the context of my affirmative because mine is a criticism of the fluidity that authors such as Deleuze espouse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dancing in the corpse of language doesn't help most affirmatives answer Baudrillard critiques - no link and it links harder to the aff (plus there's a performative alt, so it wouldn't make much sense).

 

What I'd be really interested in is someone's analysis of the popular Baudrillard cards that are usually read as their own off-case against both policy and kritikal affs. Or even neg block extensions for those arguments so I can understand what they're supposed to mean and how they're supposed to interact without blindly guessing or loading up non-responsive 2AC cards.

 

yeah i guess, it's just what I had lol

 

post some of the popular cards and i'll do some analysis. i dont know what u define as "popular"

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dancing in the corpse of language doesn't help most affirmatives answer Baudrillard critiques - no link and it links harder to the aff (plus there's a performative alt, so it wouldn't make much sense).

 

What I'd be really interested in is someone's analysis of the popular Baudrillard cards that are usually read as their own off-case against both policy and kritikal affs. Or even neg block extensions for those arguments so I can understand what they're supposed to mean and how they're supposed to interact without blindly guessing or loading up non-responsive 2AC cards.

 

If you post cards, I'd be happy to attempt an interpretation.  Don't think I've heard enough Baudrillard Ks to guess at the common cards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Baudrillard is a fuck

BALSAS, 2006 [BALSAS is an interdisciplinary journal on media culture.  Interview with Art Group BBM, “on first cyborgs, aliens and other sides of new technologies,†translated from lithiuanian http://www.balsas.cc/modules.php?name=News&file=print&sid=151]

 

Valentinas: We all know that Jean Baudrillard did not believe that the Gulf War did take place, as it was over-mediated and over-simulated. In fact, the Gulf War II is still not over, and Iraq became much more than just a Frankenstein laboratory for the new media, technology and “democracy†games. What can we learn from wars that do not take place, even though they cannot be finished? Are they becoming a symptom of our times as a confrontation between multiple time-lines, ideologies and technologies in a single place?

Lars: Actually, it has always been the same: new wars have been better test-beds for the state of art technologies and the latest computer-controlled firearms. The World War I already was a fully mechanized war where pre-robots were fighting each other and gassing the troops. And afterwards, the winners shape the new world order.

Olaf: Who on hell is Baudrillard? The one who earns money by publishing his prognoses after the things happen? What a fuck, French philosophy deals too much with luxury problems and elegantly ignores the problem itself. It’s no wonder, this is the colonizer’s mentality, you can hear it roaring in their words: they use phrases made to camouflage genocide.

I went to see that Virilio’s exhibition "Ce qui arrive" at Foundation Cartier in 2003. I was smashed by that banal presentation of  the evil of all kinds: again, natural catastrophes and evil done by man were exposed on the same wall, glued together with a piece of "theory". There you find it all, filed up in one row: the pure luxury of the Cartier-funded Jean Nouvel building, an artwork without any blood in its veins, and that late Christian philosophy about the techno-cataclysm being the revenge of God. Pure shit, turned into gold in the holy cellars of the modern alchemists’ museums.

The artist-made video "documents" of the Manhattan towers opposed to Iraqian war pictures: that’s not Armageddon, that’s man-invented war technology to be used to subdue others. And there is always somebody who pushes the buttons, even when the button is a computer mouse some ten thousand kilometers away from the place where people die, or even if it is a civil airplanes redirected by Islamists. Everybody knows that. War technology has always been made to make killing easier. And to produce martyrs as well.

Janneke: Compare Baudrillard with Henry Dunant, the founder of the International Committee of the Red Cross. Dunant was no philosopher, he was just an intelligent rich man in the late 19th century. But his ideas went far more in the direction where you should hope to find philosophers as well. He experienced war as a "randonneur": he passed by, he saw the suffering and the inhumanity of war. And he felt obliged to act. Apart from the maybe 10 days he spent on the battlefield, on the beautiful meadows in the Europeans Alps, helping wounded people to survive, as a complete medical layman he decided to do something more sustainable against these odds. He knew that his efforts couldn’t prevent war in general, but he felt that he could alter the cruelty of reality. And he succeeded in doing it. No wonder that in our days we find the most engaged people to support the TROIA projects intention in Geneva, where they are still based. And they are not only doing their necessary surgeon’s work in the field: they are as well fighting with the same energy on the diplomatic battlefield.

 

 

That's all you need

 

 

(this is coming from a baudrillard hack btw)

Son of a gun I accidentally down-voted this and feel horrible now :(

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...

×
×
  • Create New...