Re: Baudrillard - Disneyland

[TheSunmanho]

There is no US-American culture.

Period.

[virtual7insanity]

100% agree!

[leathalinjection666]

Rylanddeath seems to have it dead on

i've just begun to study Jean's works, so maybe wut i have to say is incorrect, but perhaps we've been distorting reality fromt he begining

because we could never come to terms with what reality really is

anyway does anyone know of any books i should read to begin studying Jean Baudrillard? i'm about to read his book America

[RylandDeath]

I mean...

What does "Snow White" look like?

Is God an Italian guy with a beard?

[RylandDeath]

I like that you ask the question: is this any different from ancient Egypt?

Ultimately, we have can no tangible connection to the lived reality of an ancient Egyptian pyramid worker in a thick sense. We've got some tablets, some crusty old mummies, some big buildings out in a desert somewhere, etc. That's it.

But, when we imagine the "historical reality" of that Egyptian, the extent to which it looks like a Charlton Heston movie gives us some idea about how we consume signs.

[RylandDeath]

I think the easiest way to address your concern, Mr. Randy, is first to make the distinction between "active" production (myth), and "passive" consumption (Disneyland). In the former category, the subject has value: he or she produces the signs that mean stuff for him or her. In the latter, the object has value: he or she consumes an object (or the 'experience' or whatever) which supplies the meaning on its own.

[Boredweare]

'Zorio' wrote some strange things. For J.B. 'symbolic exchange' is a term similar to 'seduction.' Zorio seems to use it to mean 'semiotic order' or 'commodity exchange'. It is hopeless to tackle the later J.B. without reading his most important work, 'Symbolic Exchange and Death'(1976) A good general intro is ISBN: 0415215153

[iaeruo]

how about Fatal Strategies..? im reading that one and i dont get some of it. have you read it?

[Deborah334]

"Hyperreality" is nothing but Gnostics redivivus.

[Kaaru]

Nice example of an exchange between a continental and an analytic philosopher with neither side understanding the others vocabulary or point. Personally, I'm with Randy. The keyword with Baudrillard is not 'hyperreality', but 'hyperbole'. I mean, you can see the point he's making, but . . . it ain't that bad, Baud!

[randyhelzerman]

Is it that obvious????  I thought I was better at hiding my orientation :-)

[Kaaru]

You'll have to stop using Donald Davidson's name if you want to hide. Only you analytic types know who he is. :-) (But why hide?)

[randyhelzerman]

Ooops! Yeah, I let that slip. P.S. unfortunately too damn few analytic types know about him at that...

[zorio]

See, this is what I'm saying. He's not saying it's bad or good, just that it is the way it is. He championed symbolic exchange over the power of production that modernism and Marxism talk about, was called too Anti-American by Americans, and too Pro-American by Europeans. He's not playing sides here.

[Kaaru]

If someone uses the kind of rhetoric you used above in connection with anything (x) - terms like absurd, empty, totalizing - people will take that as saying that x is bad. They will then be confused when that someone says his description contained no hint of normativity.

[zorio]

That's only because you've been conditioned to think that those words are used with implied values, when in fact the words have specific definitions and need not be loaded with such bias.

[Kaaru]

Are you saying that words like 'absurd', 'empty', 'die', 'kill', and 'totalize', in fact have value-neutral meanings like 'brown', 'up', and 'electron' do, and I just didn't know it because I was raised speaking English? Have all of us English speakers been tricked like this?

[zorio]

Absurd means non-rational, not bad.

Empty means lacking in some capacity, not bad.

Die and kill are natural processes, not bad.

Totalize is a concept of fullness, again, not bad.

The only reason that emptiness, lack, and non-rationality are "bad" is because the history of Western thought has deemed them such. That doesn't mean the philosophical canon is right though.

[Kaaru]

"I just killed your family."

"Oh, that's a natural process, not bad. No hard feelings."

"Children in Africa are dying from their empty stomachs."

"Yes, they undergo a natural process because their stomachs lack a certain capacity . . . ."

Hmm, have I really been duped by Western thought, or are your definitions just wrong? Let me see . . .

[Kaaru]

Compare: the only reason that 'rationality', and 'presence' are suspicious to people like you is because some European philosophers have deemed them such. That doesn't mean that those philosophers are right, though.

Seriously, do you really want to claim that non- and pre-Westerners think/thought 'empty' stomachs, 'empty' lives, 'irrational' people, and a 'lack' of love neutral or good?

[randyhelzerman]

I just re-listend to the video to see if there are any really unambiguously BAAAAD words, and sure enough, I found one. Baud compares the parking lot of Disneyland to a concentration camp--uh, the word "hyperbole" does come to mind, Kaaru :-)

Does Baud think that a concentration camp is a value-neutral term? I mean, that goes a bit beyond spreading the butter a bit too thick, don't you think? Has Baud never visited one of those places, or did he never have friends who were sent to one?

[zorio]

Exactly, the parking lot is the concentration camp, "the absolute solitude of the parking lot - a veritable concentration camp - is total". He's not making a value-based judgment, he's setting a mood, using a metaphor to build the setting, showing the loneliness of the "outside" in a world that exists only for those who are "inside".

[randyhelzerman]

Hi Zorio, I don't want to put too fine a point on it, but really, I do think that bandying about words like "concentration camp" tends to inure us to their impact, and contributes to the banality of evil. I mean, lets face it, the concentration camps were pretty much the worst thing that happend in the 20th century--maybe ever. I don't know that reading Baud as construing "concentration camp" in a value-neutral way does him any favors. The metaphor is pretty tasteless, IMHO.

[Kaaru]

I agree. 'Concentration camp' is associated with a lot more than just 'loneliness' and 'solitude'. (Why didn't he just say 'desert island'?) It's hard not to draw the conclusion that Baudrillard is using extremely negatively-charged words in order to be provocative.

[zorio]

You're quite obviously using extreme examples in order to prove your point. Note that you're also using only human-based example in order to really drive home the species centric nature of the words.

"My cat just killed a fly."

"Cells in your body are continually dying."

"My glass is empty."

Which of these words is bad in itself again?

[Kaaru]

Yes, so the connotation of some words changes depending on the context. But you have yet to show that in the context of Baudrillard's discussion of Disneyland these words do not have negative connotations. What's your value-neutral gloss on "Disneyland is . . . brought to the realm of absurdity"?

[zorio]

"absurd

1. Contrary to reason or propriety; obviously and flatly opposed to manifest truth; inconsistent with the plain dictates of common sense; logically contradictory; <b>nonsensical</b>; <b>ridiculous</b>; as, an absurd person, an absurd opinion; an absurd dream."

[Kaaru]

Ok, so I take it you gloss the sentence as:

(1) Disneyland is made nonsensical/ridiculous.

But seriously calling any x 'nonsensical' or 'ridiculous' is making a negative value judgment towards x. Therefore, your thesis that Baudrillard is not making a negative value judgment towards Disneyland is false.

[Kaaru]

Seriously, though, I can't figure out why you wanted to maintain this point. That Baudrillard has a theory about the way things are, that he claims it is inevitable, and that his theory presents the way things are in a negative light are an internally consistent bunch of statements that fit what Baudrillard actually says the best. Why deny the last?

[zorio]

1. Because Baudrillard is not a systematic (read: consistent) thinker.

2. Because he not a Rationalist (in that, he does not value Rationality over Irrationality). In fact, his entire philosophy is based on a. Not being rational and consistent and b. Becoming-Object, that is, his philosophy is an attempt to put Cartesian-Kantian philosophy on it's head, by representing the Object rather than the Subject, making the Object primary and in control, etc.

[Kaaru]

So if the pilot of the plane Baudrillard is on looks at the fuel gauge, sees its almost on empty, knows that if its almost on empty the fuel tank is almost empty, but infers that the tank is almost full, Baudrillard is ok with that?

[zorio]

No, that has nothing to do with his philosophy. The Empty Sign is not an empty sign; it is significant, wholly other to the hyperreal he describes.

[Kaaru]

Sorry, I should have explained better. You said Baudrillard doesn't value rationality over irrationality, so I came up with an example with an irrational pilot (from (p and (p->q)) he infers ~q) putting Baudrillard's life in danger. I wanted to see if you would admit that in this situation Baudrillard would prefer a rational pilot.

[zorio]

He might in cases where rationality has proven beneficial. The history of philosophy is quite different from practical uses of rationality, in that it has been dominated by an almost mystical "Reason" and Irrationality has been completely obscured and deemed "bad" rather than seen as natural until the second half of the 19th Century.

[Kaaru]

Good answer. When you say that irrationality is seen as natural are you talking about Foucault's work on madness? I find Foucault quite difficult, but I'm interested in rationality/irrationality, so I'll have to check that out.

[zorio]

In Continental thought, irrationality is traced to Kierkegaard, Marx, Nietzsche, and Freud, as each has contributed to the idea that humans are not completely rational, and that irrationality (be it Faith, Will, Materialistic Hierarchy, or Psychological "disorders") is normal/natural (that is, not an abomination). Foucault continues this idea.

[Kaaru]

Well, it looks like I have quite a bit of reading to do. After this semester is over, that is. :-) (Now, where'd I put those notes for my second assignments, which I've been neglecting for the past few days, again . . . ?) Thanks, Michael. I look forward to doing this with you again sometime.

[zorio]

You're only saying that because YOU are making a value judgment, that is, that Reason is (always) GOOD. Baudrillard comes from a tradition (Foucault, Heidegger, Nietzsche, Freud) that REJECTS this "basic" assumption outright, saying that it has no grounds for Truth and as such should also be questioned.

[Kaaru]

Yes, I know a little about that tradition. And this was my original point in my comment on your and Randy's discussion. Continental types and analytic types will find it difficult to have a productive exchange because they have different standards, different ideas on what moves are permissible in the philosophy language game. But, I must say, I never said that "Reason is (always) good." I never capitalize 'reason' in writing or speech.

[zorio]

"what moves are permissible in the philosophy language game"

There's your problem. Baudrillard does not deal with language. What he deals with is the human being in reality and he has no problem with that, he has far more to do with Phenomenology.

I do understand what you mean about the Continental/Analytic split though, thank you.

[Kaaru]

Oh, the point was not about Baudrillard but about the way that philosophers in the two traditions go about doing philosophy (playing philosophy 'language games'). You know, continentals take Freud seriously, analytics don't; analytics think physics is the bees-knees, continentals don't, etc., etc. They talk about different things. Anyway, nice having this little discussion with you, Michael. Take care.

[randyhelzerman]

Ummm....the only reason that "cat" means cat instead of dog is because western thought has deemed thems such, no? I'm confused....its almost like your claiming that these words have some platonic meaning attached to them which is independent of, and even contrary to, the way we use the words.

[Kaaru]

No, 'cat' is a bad example and it's the furtherest thing from Plato. Zorio takes seriously a narrative told by Nietzsche, Heidegger, and Derrida, which says that the history of Western thought is mistaken in various ways. As long as you keep thinking in philosophy of language terms, you won't understand Zorio.

[zorio]

YouTube's a little wonky for me right now, so I can't tell if this is in response to me Randy, but I certainly don't believe in Platonism forms. I do however want to say that just because you think of a word as "bad" (say, death) that doesn't mean that everyone else thinks of it that way, or has to use it that way at all.

[zorio]

Superheroes (and myths) are based on reality, whereas the in Baudrillard the hyperreal becomes the new reality, and reality itself drops away. Disneyland communicates with the human being not in the realm of simulation, like superheroes. Superheroes are human beings turned up to 11, becoming human+. Disneyland is a magical land that is brought to the realm of absurdity in order to make the rest of the world seem "normal"

[zorio]

Disneyland communicates through signs, promising eternal youth (is there any wonder why Disney owns Peter Pan?), and it can do so because it presents the rest of the world as "Adult", as if childishness can be contained or controlled.

[zorio]

Disneyland is the empty place where everyone is a child and where the very idea of adulthood is left at the gates, where the "Real world" is always outside, despite the fact that Disneyland and the world around it form a new reality further from Reality than any mythos or superhero, which needs reality in order to make sense. Disneyland is just a part of this new world order, a world made up of emptiness not based on actualities, but on empty promises, brands, and symbolic exchange.

[randyhelzerman]

Hmmm....thanks for trying to help me out here :-) I guess I've just read too much Donald Davidson. Yes, Disneyland gives us another whole vocabulary, but why is one way of talking about the world any less real than another way of talking about the world? Why is, say, the myth of Narcissus any more insightful into human nature than the myth of Peter Pan?

[randyhelzerman]

P.S. if there is anything more Narcissistic than YouTube, I'd hate to see what it is :-)

[zorio]

It isn't "another whole vocabulary", hyperreality has nothing to do with linguistics, it has to do with how one is in the world and how an individual relates to their world. Peter Pan has nothing to do with hyperreality until it is taken as reality, Disneyland is taken as real in the sense that it's empty signs are taken as truths, that it exists as a place of eternal youth.

[zorio]

Hyperreality is not language games, it is a new existence, where symbols and symbolic exchange take the place of use-value and exchange-value, where symbols become totalizing and any meaning in the proper sense is done away with as signs and brands become real (and yet remain empty), by consuming the consumer until the subject has essentially become an object and reality dies with it's subject.

[randyhelzerman]

Hi Zorio, maybe that's my problem--I don't know enough of the lingo. how can there be a symbol or symbolic exchange outside of language?

Maybe you can recommend a "Baudrillard for dummies" book I can read :-)

[zorio]

I would suggest the book I took this from, the citation is in the sidebar of my Disneyland video.