Re: [-empyre-] Kroker on Baudrillard, forward from McKenzie Wark

Yes, an interesting idea, Aliette--regarding Pollock
and Baudrillard, I'll have to give that some
thought... :-)

It is of interest that Baudrillard does not often
mention Deleuze and Guattari, though his feeling
toward their work he makes somewhat clear here,
retrospectively, regarding what his interlocutor,
Francois L'Yvonnet, calls 'freudo-marxism':

"Some saw an extreme radicalism in that.  But the mix
sounded the death knell of both desire and revolution.
 The blending of the two led to each being neutralized
by the other.  There were many who based themselves on
the idea for a long time.  As far as the question of
desire was concerned, I already had some marked
disagreements with Lyotard, and even with
Deleuze...while entirely admiring their machine, which
was very desirable, but from my point of view not very
operative! A whole generation based themselves on this
terrible ambiguity, on things that had, to all intents
and purposes, already disappeared."


--- Aliette <> wrote:

> Sorry of my English and consequently of my
> approximate meaning
> Exactly I think that it can be interesting to learn
> more from Forget
> Foucaul; what can gives a good phenomenological
> approach of Baudrillard's
> choices and engagements at the proof of the text as
> proper object, that
> exceeds the interpretations - at least locally.
> May be this book a manifesto by the following
> dialectic which he still
> practiced at this moment:
> 1.
> he criticizes the scientific discourse of the
> exhaustive description as a
> discourse of power at Foucault (from genealogy to
> archaeology that is
> nothing more than an extensive field to sociology
> and history from the
> structural anthropology studying both synchronically
> and diachronically to
> contribute the informed conclusive thesis. But
> Baudrillard does not call
> against Lévy-Strauss : why ? Because at
> Levy-Strauss synchronic and
> diachronic as dialectical methodology did not
> correspond to a request of
> holding the totality of the information on a subject
> (consequently a power
> of knowledge) but all the contrary a request of
> relativity, a request to
> interpreter the movement - the evolution at work in
> the people still alive -
> through a methodology able of answering to the
> scientific relativism by an
> innovation into the fields of the human sciences
> (something requesting the
> generative dynamism as predictable): that was a
> great project contributing
> to the diversity of the living world. On Foucault,
> Baudrillard says that all
> the contrary: not can being creation, the exhaustive
> discourse of its
> outside object as object of science effects the
> entropy of its mortification
> - and he manifests it by his proper text on
> Foucault.[1]
> At this moment, he shows that the problem of the
> perfection of beauty (is it
> the world -- in the meaning from Kant, the unuseful
> beautiful as part of the
> aesthetics -- i.e.'Criticism of the faculty of
> judgement") at Foucault is
> not that one of the thought but of the productive
> capacity of inspection of
> the object as domination.
> 2. 
> He dialectically criticizes the question of the
> production of thought
> through the text from the desiring economy of Anti
> Å?dipe at Deleuze
> (J.B.ignoring to quote Guattari and I have not still
> understand why, as they
> worked together before; strangely he has never
> talked even to us of
> Guattari) and more from the Libidinal economy at
> Lyotard. Having himself
> over passed the question of the production after "To
> a political economy of
> the signs". Deciding ultimately on the question of
> the relevance of ultimate
> political economy of the production, in this book,
> just following The
> symbolic exchange and death yet out at this moment.
> 3.
> In the same movement of his rhetoric, he both
> installs the comparison with
> the question of the metaphor and of the rhetoric
> exceeding the productive
> process of production can be from sciences can be
> from philosophy to the
> thought through the text, by the way he edifies the
> question of the style in
> the essay as predictable innovation of thought and
> of worlds from the
> ability of integrating the changing social
> collective experiments without
> allegiance of it, and yet performing it in the text
> Oublier Foucault.
> Installing that the radical philosophical text
> cannot be a production of
> knowledge but of thought by the text.[1]
>     what is Baudrillard in all his works can be
> acting theory, can be acting
> media on the society, can be photography: all being
> diverse and different
> aspects of a ternary experimental work of divided
> philosophy - a broken
> philosophy not a gender philosophy; but at last,
> every fragment extracted
> from each one being a gender experiment of
> integration of the fields more of
> social events in the event of the thought as proper
> successive events.
> May be here to understand a part of his enjoyment to
> Hacker manifesto? We'll
> see what, whatever he would or not quote it - that
> signify nothing at
> Baudrillard, having able to invent in dedication of
> a book quotations from
> the Bible that never existed:)- (and it is always a
> surprise to discover or
> not discover what of the inspiration he received in
> the time he was writing
> a book), by reading his next book ("The end of
> politic" - I think that I
> have still quote here) that I ignored he was writing
> while we offer him a
> copy of Ken's book... I  knew that he was writing
> but he did not say to me
> that it was a complete book in project (may be he
> was afraid to be in
> difficulty to finish it at the ultimate moment, so
> he preferred be silent on
> this active process).
> Something reminding me the tentative by Lawrence
> Durell with The Quatuor of
> Alexandria but so far from it and so much less
> melancholic. Because
> Baudrillard was the philosopher performing the
> philosophy in real time and
> of the real time (May be from a part the Jackson
> Pollock of the philosophy:
> that was possible/ he did it) as proper "jouissance"
> of the text.
> A.
> [1] As gender literature in the proper meaning, I
> should like to quote that
> Fr young Mehdi Belhaj Kacem in 1999 has plagiarized
> Oublier Foucault in a
> creative version as textual gender; he realized a
> conceptual vampire from
> two voices becoming proper one, by relating as poet
> a philosopher's
> discourse - from a performance of the Derridian
> philosopher in these times
> (but having changed in proper universe) Serge
> Margel: "The phenomenology of
> the ghost" that became at Mehdi: "Inquiry on the
> Phenomenology of the
> ghost"; performance in destiny of revenge Hölderlin
> against Hegel (said
> having made mad Hölderlin by having declared that
> Philosophy would master
> the totality of the thought, what relegated the
> poetry to fantasy - our Fr
> legend from I do not remember whom author - Artaud
> may be). The result
> having been the hard discord without reparation
> between Margel and Mehdi of
> course.
> That was the question of the thought as power more
> consequently following
> that one of academism and from another hand of the
> free creation of thought
> through the innovating style.
> A defy that remind of Baudrillard's defy not giving
> him easy his life as
> career...
> I have published it in criticalsecret online (issue
> one) under the
> multifield thema titled  "Actuality of the vampire"
> (but unfortunately only
> French):
> This text from Mehdi having founded the reason of
> the creation of
> criticalsecret, after our common and solider divide
> from a publisher to whom
> I was working, (and both Baudrillard and more
> klossowski dividing from this
> publisher with another respective causes that I
> cannot 
=== message truncated ===

Dr. Nicholas Ruiz III
Editor, Kritikos

This archive was generated by a fusion of Pipermail 0.09 (Mailman edition) and MHonArc 2.6.8.