version

Well-known member
American intellectuals didn't understand Baudrillard because they didn't understand America.

Jean had first come to America two years earlier, having been asked to teach at UCSD by the Marxist critic Fredric Jameson, who wanted to pick his brains. (Jean-François Lyotard and Louis Marin also taught there around this time.) At this early point in Jean’s career, Jameson’s gesture toward him was a thrilling invitation. And he had, by all accounts, a wonderful time: He fell passionately in love with the wife of another faculty member, and colleagues remember the pair walking barefoot in the halls of the French Department, holding hands like two flower children. But something did end up going wrong in the kingdom of San Diego: By the following year, Jean was no longer there and Jameson was warning his students against attending lectures given by “the French camp.”
 

craner

Beast of Burden
Jean had first come to America two years earlier, having been asked to teach at UCSD by the Marxist critic Fredric Jameson, who wanted to pick his brains. (Jean-François Lyotard and Louis Marin also taught there around this time.) At this early point in Jean’s career, Jameson’s gesture toward him was a thrilling invitation. And he had, by all accounts, a wonderful time: He fell passionately in love with the wife of another faculty member, and colleagues remember the pair walking barefoot in the halls of the French Department, holding hands like two flower children. But something did end up going wrong in the kingdom of San Diego: By the following year, Jean was no longer there and Jameson was warning his students against attending lectures given by “the French camp.”

Jean Baudrillard Did Not Care If She Was Your Wife.
 

sus

Moderator
Jean had first come to America two years earlier, having been asked to teach at UCSD by the Marxist critic Fredric Jameson, who wanted to pick his brains. (Jean-François Lyotard and Louis Marin also taught there around this time.) At this early point in Jean’s career, Jameson’s gesture toward him was a thrilling invitation. And he had, by all accounts, a wonderful time: He fell passionately in love with the wife of another faculty member, and colleagues remember the pair walking barefoot in the halls of the French Department, holding hands like two flower children. But something did end up going wrong in the kingdom of San Diego: By the following year, Jean was no longer there and Jameson was warning his students against attending lectures given by “the French camp.”
This is incredible. The barefoot handholding part. Chef kiss. What went wrong do you know? Were the French just cassanovas?
 

sus

Moderator
The muad dib knows he cannot stray from the righteous path or else suffer hellfire torment. He knows the righteous path is a monogamous path, requiring the mastery of desire. He must sniff out deadly temptations like a poison snooper.
 

sus

Moderator
Desire is the mind-killer. Desire is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my desire. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the desire has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.
 

version

Well-known member
This is incredible. The barefoot handholding part. Chef kiss. What went wrong do you know? Were the French just cassanovas?

Doesn't say. It's from Lotringer's obituary for him.

 
  • Like
Reactions: sus

version

Well-known member
What else did he say?

A Model Material: Glass

One material sums up the idea of atmosphere and may be thought of as embodying
a universal function in the modern environment. That material is GLASS.
Advertising calls it 'the material of the future' - a future which, as we all know, will
itself be 'transparent'. Glass is thus both the material used and the ideal to be
achieved, both end and means. So much for metaphysics. Psychologically speaking,
glass in its practical, as in its imaginary uses has many merits. It is the ideal modern
recipient: it does not 'pick up the taste', it does not change over time as a function of
its content, as do wood and metal, nor does it shroud that content in mystery. Glass
eliminates all confusion in short order, and does not conduct heat. Fundamentally
it is less a recipient than an isolator - the miracle of a rigid fluid - a content that is
also a container, and hence the basis of a transparency between the two: a kind
of transcendence which, as we have seen, is the first priority in the creation of
atmosphere. Moreover, glass implies a symbolism of access to a secondary state
of consciousness, and at the same time it is ranked symbolically at zero level on
the scale of materials. Its symbolism is one of solidification - hence of abstractness.
This abstractness opens the door to the abstractness of the inner world: the crystal
of madness; to the abstractness of the future: the clairvoyant's crystal ball; and to the
abstractness of nature: the other worlds to which the eye gains entry via microscope
or telescope. And certainly, with its indestructibility, immunity to decay, colourless-
ness, odourlessness, and so on, glass exists at a sort of zero level of matter: glass is
to matter as a vacuum is to air.
 
  • Wow
Reactions: sus

Ian Scuffling

Well-known member
Is S&S the best place to start? In my regrettable mistake of studying film instead of philosophy I am extremely behind on, well, where I feel I ought to be in "thought" compared to my peers, and Baudrillard is one of the thinkers they all talk about a lot.
 

version

Well-known member
In my regrettable mistake of studying film instead of philosophy I am extremely behind on, well, where I feel I ought to be in "thought" compared to my peers, and Baudrillard is one of the thinkers they all talk about a lot.

I've heard the French stuff's more common studying film, media, literature, art and architecture than on actual philosophy courses. The people I know who had to read Deleuze at uni were doing art and film and the guy I know who did philosophy never went anywhere near that sort of thing.

Is S&S the best place to start?

America's a good place to start. It's a short one with him driving around the US saying Baudrillard things about Americans and their landscape and culture, like a French alien landed in a motel.

“This country is without hope. Even its garbage is clean, its trade lubricated, its traffic pacified. The latent, the lacteal, the lethal - life is so liquid, the signs and messages are so liquid, the bodies and the cars are so fluid, the hair so blond, and the soft technologies so luxuriant, that a European dreams of death and murder, of suicide motels, of orgies and cannibalism to counteract the perfection of the ocean, of the light, of that insane ease of life, to counteract the hyperreality of everything here.”
 

sus

Moderator
Is S&S the best place to start? In my regrettable mistake of studying film instead of philosophy I am extremely behind on, well, where I feel I ought to be in "thought" compared to my peers, and Baudrillard is one of the thinkers they all talk about a lot.
You should read my mighty works instead, they're like Jean Baudrillard in subject and style, but the treatment and ideas are much better
 

Ian Scuffling

Well-known member
I've heard the French stuff's more common studying film, media, literature, art and architecture than on actual philosophy courses. The people I know who had to read Deleuze at uni were doing art and film and the guy I know who did philosophy never went anywhere that sort of thing.
This definitely tracks with my experience, the stakes around understanding Deleuze here are extremely high.

America sounds like the sort of thing I'd love, thanks!
 

version

Well-known member
Think this is my favourite of the ones I've read. It's only an excerpt, but there are PDFs around. The book itself is like a hundred quid second hand - fuck that.


If we look closely, we see that the real world begins, in the modern age, with the decision to transform the world, and to do so by means of science, anaIytical knowledge and the implementation of technology – that is to say that it begins, in Hannah Arendt’s words, with the invention of an Archimedean point outside the world (on the basis of the invention of the telescope by Galileo and the discovery of modern mathematical calculation) by which the natural world is definitively alienated. This is the moment when human beings, while setting about analyzing and transforming the world, take their leave of it, while at the same time lending it force of reality. We may say, then, that the real world begins, paradoxically, to disappear at the very same time as it begins to exist.
Screenshot from 2024-06-05 19-29-41.png
 
Top