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

[Aliette <aliette@criticalsecret.org>]

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 LÃvy-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 Ådipe 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 HÃlderlin against Hegel (said
having made mad HÃlderlin 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):
http://www.criticalsecret.com/n1/medhi/01.htm

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 know exactly) at the
moment he had order a book on Jealousy to Mehdi since a year, and Mehdi as a
poet having produced all otherwise this text expecting the book "Aesthetic
of the chaos" that all were refused by this publisher.

This critical text (yet now being inside Aesthtic of the chaos at
Tristram)...

Yet now Mehdi does not want be a poet but a philosopher himself having
worked a lot and discuss with Badiou who says that Mehdi will be a very
singular but very interesting emergent philosopher.

This one text and its proper rupture, more the yearly multifield colloquium
of Baudrillard at CNAC Pompidou in 1997 on the critical mass, having both
inspired my idea of creating criticalsecret.




On 21/03/07 14:03, "Nicholas Ruiz III" <editor@intertheory.org> probably
wrote:

> I agree with Kroker's insight as to Baudrillard's
> 'futurism'--but only as a currency, not as a prophetic
> sensibility; but as for the 'ancient' influence he
> attributes to a magical variety--this I find unlikely.
> 
> There is no sense of giddiness in Baudrillard, where
> his thought becomes a 'theatre of the medieval
> artistic practice of anamorphosis,' and spinning
> wildly.  I do suspect that the lacerative effect of
> his claims evokes this feeling in many readers, as
> consumer affect.  Such a rendering is a large part of
> the general misunderstanding of critical theory, where
> a diabolical, philosophical directness, is mistaken by
> a reader, and emasculated for reverie.
> 
> Baudrillard's work resolved a seriously singular
> reality-- there need not be, as Paul Taylor mentioned
> in a conversation recently--a 'sideorder of optimism'
> with every theoretical proposition. It is the absence
> of such a pragmatic delivery, which often compels
> readers to categorize theory ineffectually as
> something else.  It is this rationalist sense of
> disciplinary formality that apologists and detractors
> of theory share in furthering its demolition.
> 
> NRIII
> 
>>> 
>>> From: "McKenzie Wark" <mckenzie.wark@gmail.com>
>>> Date: March 20, 2007 5:16:20 PM PDT
>>> To: soft_skinned_space
>> <empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au>
>>> Subject: Re: [-empyre-] Kroker on Baudrillard
>>> 
>>> 
>>> The Kroker obit is a good one. Something should be
>> said, however,  
>>> about JB's photography. I think its really quite
>> different to the
>>> writing. There's a kind of delight in the visual
>> that's quite  
>>> different to the distrust of the sign.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ___________________
>>> McKenzie Wark
>>> http://www.ludiccrew.org
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> empyre forum
>> empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
>> http://www.subtle.net/empyre
>> 
> 
> 
> Dr. Nicholas Ruiz III
> Editor, Kritikos
> http://intertheory.org
> _______________________________________________
> empyre forum
> empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> http://www.subtle.net/empyre
>