Responses to Baudrillard

I sent the Baudrillard essay to some of my favorite thinkers on the planet. The replies were so amazing we decided to start a blog. The Baudrillard essay is the first post on the blog. welcome.

-------------------------------------------------------

The last paragraph.....yes

Yes, the targets themselves were symbolic - why else were they targeted?!? WTC, Pentagon - symbols of and in themselves (even without being targets they are strong symbols - symbolic of so many things, the list to long to begin.....). The ACT of destroying these targets I can see as symbolic (from a terrorist's POV). Their actual destruction; however, cannot be seen as symbolic - or maybe I refuse to see it that way. The simplification of the unforeseen collapse of the TT's as some sort of suicidal-effication comes across as ....well, banal, empty. 

Maybe I get unnerved by the pedestrian symbolic approach of 911. So I become guarded against it. 

For example, for fodder, consider these pedestrian responses to the attacks (these will all sound familiar to you - and they will come across as especially (to use the aforementioned word..) banal:

September 11th = 9/11 = 911 = number called for emergency = symbol for emergency, distress, help needed

Twin towers look like the number 11 (gee, that's spooky and sooooo symbolic  - we should have seen the signs! - sarcasm here can be applied to the above example as well)

Planes = wrath from above = symbolizes _______ (please fill blank with your favorite story from revelations)

Here are a couple that were certainly seen by the terrorists:

Collapse of WTC = collapse of free market, evil doers, america, capitalism, globalization, .....

Penetration of Pentagon = collapse of US military might

Kudos to Baudrillard for finding one out there that hasn't been posited before. His reasoning is unparalleled. The last paragraph....yes.

Brilliant.
Thanks for the read and the discussion

-Christopher

-------------------------------------------------------

Tanks for the Baudi piece

When I did read this I found a certain feeling that the true essence of the terror feeling lays not so much in the good vs. evil concept but for me rather an influence of Chaos theory upon a system in progress. Not a natural selection rather a logical progression which requires occasional backlashes simply out of a Murphian-law form for existence. I find that the more I think about the system of ‘terrorism’ the more I believe in the backlash and the reasoning that one swims up stream in the only way that one can, (should there be a waterfall). In addition I think that the only future that I see is one not of politics but that of commercialism, a planet determined in broad daylight by corporate transactions, as compared to the hidden agendas of politicians covering their campaign contribution favorites.

I often think about viruses in computers and their own intricate beauty. Not as a horrible thing but rather a glowing facet in contrast to a ‘well functioning’ system. Sounds fucked but I think that symbolically their existence is fascinating, that one would in their own mind think to develop, produce, and unleash flies in the ointment of a perfect culture. To understand the hacker and its own development is also to understand somewhat the idealism and extremist values of terrorists. Terrorism is not a war. It can’t be fixed, it just is and always will be. And labeling it with astute labels is only to pander to the cause and not the reason.
-Dan

-------------------------------------------------------

This was interesting read for sure. Can't say I agree with him
on everything though. I'm not convinced that it's actually
WWIV, if the cold war was indeed WWIII. And I'm not sold on the
idea that globalization is inherently a bad thing. I'm not sure
it's totally positive either.

It does seem like he's over reacting, as the media in our
country has, to the terrorist threat, and is offering terrorists
more clout than they deserve. Al Qaeda is a small extremist
faction and seems he is offering their voice to the critics of
globalization, which I think is wrong.

I agree that the world generally would like to see the toppling
of a sole superpower, but that will happen in time as history
has shown. Who knows when? The EU will likely eclipse the US
as economic superpower soon enough though.

I believe Chomsky though when he says while the world is ailing
and troubled, things are way better, for more people, than
they've ever been througout history. That says something, and I
need to remind myself of that. Environmentally I'd disagree, but
socially I guess it makes sense. But I'm not a philosopher. :)

- Andrew

-------------------------------------------------------

Andrew, bravo - you make an excellent point. I too felt that Baudrillard was
lending a 'voice' to Al Qaeda to make an anti-globalization statement. I
understand your distaste for such, but Baudrillard makes an impressive
argument here - an attack on the WTC, in any form, is (?) an attack
(symbolic or otherwise) on Globalization. While I agree that this was never
implicitly stated by the people responsible, it could be inferred as such.
Baurillard's mistake is in assuming it was implied.

Love the thoughts on Chomsky...
I got lost on Baudrillard's
insistence of symbolism....got my head twisted on it for a while, but I
don't think my thoughts came out straight.
-Christopher