[iDC] Re: iDC Digest, Vol 29, Issue 23

[A. G-C]

First I have so few words to speak in English and so bad syntax. How do you
want I can express finely well but more in French?

« On passait de l'histoire transcendante, la grande Histoire, à une sorte de
contre-histoire. On descendait vers l'anodin et la banalité qui devenaient
des objets dignes d'intérêt sur le plan historique (...) On était déjà
redescendu de l'Histoire, des grands mouvements sociaux et historiques. Et
finalement, sous ses airs un peu bénins, cette plongée dans la vie
quotidienne, même si je n'aime pas beaucoup ce terme qui est un peu
réducteur, c'était quand même une espèce de révolution. En fait, plutôt une
involution par rapport à l'Histoire. On descendait de la transcendance de
l'Histoire dans une espèce d'immanence de la vie quotidienne, et à travers
elles toutes ces choses telles que la sexualité qu'on avait largement
oubliées dans l'idéalisme historique. » Entretien avec Jean Baudrillard
réalisé par Raphaël Bessis et Lucas Degryse ;  Le Philosophoire (Université
de Toulouse-Le Mirail - Le Philosophoire), n°19 consacré à l'histoire,
pp.4-21 <mrzero at panix.com> probably wrote:

Hi! Keith, hello all!

I have to say that I'm more than sixty years old so mostly part of the
things I tell are of my proper and direct social and cultural experiment
-from my proper life. If you know better than me what and who I have met in
my life, and from what I have understand anything that happened while,
please write my minor biography. I would be very grateful.

I have to say more that having an obvious difficulty to speak and more write
in English, specially very few words coming from my spontaneous structure,
I'm so sorry if very often I appear turning round or out.

> A small response to guibertc at criticalsecret.com

> 
> I have in fact read all of Baudrillard's major
> texts and nearly every line Debord ever wrote.
> And the Debord I read in French; the Baudrillard,
> which is of modest interest at best, is not
> terribly accessible in the US in French, though
> translations are legion.
> 
> Your analysis makes it seem that you did not read
> any of the later Baudrillard

I have read it 
BUT my proper object from the post you tell of, was REALLY the first part of
his work. 

>From which not keeping it in our mind, it is impossible to know the request
of  from book to book. That is exactly, as Paul Virilio so much anger by
phone two years ago said me: anger to read that Baudrillard would be a
nihilist, the critical work of the emergence of our times from their
disorganization, in request of the reverse moment as struggle, he said, a
phylosophy of existential immanence of the things cannot be nihilist.


The next title will be once more a double bind: from a part a no event if we
have well read him since a time. From a another part an event in mirror of
the end of History (Canetti) what was is subtle hearted defy... to be out in
April (posthumous) yet written since one month with a part veyr hermectic is
: "The end of politic" - or something like that. From a part and Virilios's
next one from another part : "The end of political philosophy" - or
something like that


> away from his alignment with early Barthesian
> watered-down semiotics which work was only of
> modest interest at the time and is of nearly no
> interest currently, despite its persistent
> fashionableness in American Academic circles as
> it seems to justify a personal subjectivity in
> tone. And beyond a vague reference to "spectacle"
> your analysis shows no evidence of having read
> anything by Debord.

I have the complete original SI edition at home;-) because - i'm so sorry to
be so much old- it is my proper generation

Of course I am far from the society of spectacle right now having since so
much years left an interest to it being a sort of prohecy that we could only
repetat or apply as an academism. That was all buit non an open theory to
the future struggles, at the moment the entropy of spectacle was
realizedwhen seing what became Debord for exemple ecology and all sort of
things that was not the object but hte consequence... I would have better
stop to act. So I am not more available 40 years later to discuss correctly
on. I have met Baudrillard in 67 and following his works with passion and
that was enough for me from international situationism at the moment they
were in struggle between themselves ont hte question of republications and
more... The >question of Lebovici with Hyayati was proper a versy sad end
from the part of Debord crediting Lebovici on it.
> 
> As for Lefebvre, to call him Debord's master in
> Marxism is ludicrous. While they did exchange
> ideas, Debord was very deeply grounded in Marxist
> theory long before he ever met HL.

NO. He had two formations in marxist theory from a part Socialism or
Barbary, then meeting Lefebvre (from his woman), that he both left as
getting more edyfied into the progress of SI and: I 'm sorry but the very
new marxism in this moment in FR was the marxist theory of Lefebvre there
exist no one else but Trostyst against Stalinism (SouB - they were
Trotskysts).

Michèle Bernstein is still living: found here and ask it

> The claim that Baudrillard is Debord's master in
> sociology is even more preposterous.

Baudrillard was never a master in sociology to Debord ! He ignored Debord
voluntarily but throwing any more defies... This could not come from my
words.


The only 
> encounters I know of between Baudrillard and
> Debord were when Baudrillard was Lefebvre's
> graduate assistant and Debord attended a few of
> Lefebvre 's lectures.

They met in real they bare met. Do you know that Michele Bernstein is still
alive if you want verify, and more from another hand: Tonka.

It is absolutely strange how people being academics pretend to rewrite your
proper life, I resent it as a sort of revisionism of my life

 
> antagonistic to Baudrillard and Baudrillard
> responded in kind.

He is so much far from situationism but defy (always defy in all things):
but ironically having announced in his late work that it was a transfer of
situation.

Impossible exchange extract :

³Libérée de toute fonctionnalité, désormais dévolue aux machines
intellectuelles, rendue à la clandestinité, la pensée redevient libre de ne
mener nulle part, d¹être l¹effectuation triomphale du Rien, de ressusciter
le principe du Mal. Voilà qui change toutes les perspectives. Car on se
disait (sur le modèle de Cioran :² quel dommage que pour trouver Dieu, il
faille passer par la foi !²) : Quel dommage que pour parvenir au monde, il
faille en passer par la représentation ! Quel dommage que pour dire les
choses, il faille en passer par le sens ! Quel dommage que pour connaître,
il faille en passer par le savoir ³objectif² ! Quel dommage que pour que
quelque chose fasse événement, il faille en passer par l¹information ! Que
dommage que pour qu¹il y ait de l¹échange, il faille en passer par la
valeur!    

     Eh bien, c¹est fini ! Nous sommes libres d¹une autre liberté désormais.
Délivrés de la représentation par leurs représentants eux-mêmes, les hommes
sont enfin libres d¹être ce qu¹ils sont sans passer par personne d¹autre, ni
même par la liberté ou le droit d¹être libres. Délivrées de la valeur, les
choses sont libres de circuler sans passer par l¹échange et l¹abstraction de
l¹échange. Les mots, le langage sont libres de correspondre sans passer par
le sens. De même que, délivrée de la reproduction, la sexualité devient
libre de se déployer dans l¹érotique, sans le souci de la fin et des moyens.

    Ainsi s¹opère le transfert poétique de situation.²
> 
> B's notion of the simulacrum--which postdates his
> abandonment of semiotics by a decade--is an
> attempt to exceed Debord's aggressive critique of
> the spectacle, 

Nothing to see one works on the signs from the value the other works on the
spectacle from commodity : the two works are complementary till the question
of the reverse. The large difference is that at the end of his life Debord
thought that there was no more political solution

What is exactly the same from Baudrillard at the end of his life and since a
moment.

But second part of his work he searches another thing something emergent as
reverse following the struggle.


but only manages a kind of
> nihilistic 

Virilio says all the contrary that it is a thought of immanence and of
reverse: which cannot be nihilist.
So I am not alone to think that

end game where action is excluded in
> favor of a kind of dandified contemplative
> passivity.

It is an opinion. Not my own.


> 
> Debord was himself on the barricades in 1968 and
> was constantly committed to the destruction of
> the state; where was Jean Baudrillard,

I apologize but Baudrilard was on the barricades: with all the move UTOPIA
because Baudrilard was the young assistant of Lefebvre with Donzelot they
were the activist pedagogic reference of the move of the 22 mars!!:)))

Where have you learn of 68?!!!

 - ask to Cohn-Bendit whatever he has become.

I'am sorry: we were on the barricades (I was not at the hot night because my
baby was sick with high fever, but the other times I was here and the famous
night they were all my husband was arrested the following morning - I mean
so much people were on the barricades you know?

And later in the universities with coktail molotov - you know?
I do not know from whre you hold such false informations because it is our
life, my dear... You cannot tell me that I was not here or that Baudrillard
was not here:)))

But yes I have crossed him several times at Sorbonne in 68.


servant of 
> the state, during that time? Where are his
> declarations against the world of the spectacular
> commodity, or even his own hobbyhorse, the
> simulacrum? Baudrillard's work remains solipsist
> and contemplative. Debord's work was an adjunct
> to a clear attack--

I think the work of Debord is a great work.
Great work. 

But at last too much dogmatic But I say that there were no solution of
reverse just the increasing entropy not reverse. After the society of
spectacle he was without hope but Lebovici, and after he went so sadly at
encyclopedia des nuisances

But his films

written, physical, on film,
> via audio works, and in graphic works--on
> existing conditions in society.


I prefer Ivain and Constant (my husband has met several times Constant in
Amsterdam - his master of urbanism was on unitary urbanism) I went to
Amsterdam with my husband. With a friend they have publish the first
integral review of SI without ask them in the end of 68 at Vincennes
university - it was hacking which caused the original republication by SI at
Van Gennep:))) - but their original was the second event:)

And I enjoy Rem Koolhaas (very intelligent:)

Let the dead bury 
> the dead.
> 
> Keith Sanborn

The view of Merrin interests me - the question of Durkheim may be not the
following work through Baudrillard but propoerly the question of the object
as proper matter of sociology (not the subject, not pathetism)

more the question of the reverse coming from the radical evil ?
> 
> 
> 
>> Send iDC mailing list submissions to
>> idc at mailman.thing.net
>> 
>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>> http://mailman.thing.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/idc
>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>> idc-request at mailman.thing.net
>> 
>> You can reach the person managing the list at
>> idc-owner at mailman.thing.net
>> 
>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>> than "Re: Contents of iDC digest..."
>> 
>> 
>> Today's Topics:
>> 
>>    1. Bey vs. Baudrillard, are either "Doing Theory"?
>>       (tobias c. van Veen)
>>    2. Re: Re: iDC Digest, Vol 29, Issue 21 (A. G-C)
>>    3. Re: Inventing America (Ryan Griffis)
>>    4. Baudrillard and Debord (Merrin W.)
>> 
>> 
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 
>> Message: 1
>> Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 16:08:08 -0400
>> From: "tobias c. van Veen" <tobias at techno.ca>
>> Subject: [iDC] Bey vs. Baudrillard, are either "Doing Theory"?
>> To: iDC <idc at bbs.thing.net>
>> Cc: Charles Esche <charles.esche at vanabbe.nl>
>> Message-ID: <C21DCE68.19914%tobias at techno.ca>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Charles Esche wrote:
>> 
>>>  Here his apparent  resigned, cynical indifference to the fate of the world
>>>  and its  inhabitants permitted a use of his writeings that is largely
>>>  unforgivable.
>> 
>> [...]
>> 
>>>  His writings have given permission,certainly in the art
>>>  world, for a similar cynicism and acceptance of the status quo as
>>>  long as it works for one's personal benefit.
>>