Some quotes from this book, and my comments:
"A continent which, by its mass, deflects light rays and thus cannot be seen, deflects lines of force and thus cannot be encountered, deflects the radiation of conceptual influences and thus cannot be conceived.
"Such a mental object no doubt exists, but we shall never see it, except to spot the subtle distortion it engenders in reality.
"It is by pure analogy that we can sense it, by pure divination that we can call on it; it exists when our eyes are closed, like a lysergic phantasm on the retina or the eyelids. But it is enough to focus on it briefly to make it give off a complementary radiance.
"This is the metaphysics of the Green Ray: every sphere resolves down to an equatorial point between day and night.
"This is the absolute horizon of thought."
The opening paragraphs/stanzas, And what a start to a book succeeded with more of the that awesomeness. This level of imagination/creativity/whatever you call, is most likely untouchable by lay people like me. Not within this incarnation. I don't know much about Baudrillard's ideas of simulation, but I've had some pseudo-tantric experience. According to Weberian account of Buddhism (I refuse to call it a sociological account, as a sociology student AND a Buddhist), it was to let you memorise "some special kind of pattern of graphics". No. Not that indifferently simple. That particular pattern of graphics, plus your open & serene mind, equals to almost limitless mental power. I think, to an extent, what Baudrillard was up to here is close to that kind of state of mind. An absolute wisdom, as in Buddhists' terminology.
"The most difficult thing about the thinking of evil is to expurgate it of any notion of misfortune or guilt."
Indeed very difficult it is. One of the less provocative in the book. But it still conceals one pair of coupled concepts: "evil" & "guilt". If you feel guilty, you aren't exactly evil. Familiar faces, Freudian psychoanalysis maybe? Superegos & ids?
"...I detest the bustling activity of my fellow citizens, detest initiative urban values, efficient and pretentious. They are industrial qualities, whereas idleness is a natural energy."
You don't get convinced or "converted" by this kind of statement. But the way he puts it, this strong attitude towards the euphoria generated by the positivity he deemed as illusive, still impresses you, doesn't it?
"...The parabolic river falls are like gigantic breast of an animal, a horse's breast illumined with all the colours of the mist. The water takes so long to fall that, by an illusion akin to that of silent cinema, the mass of water seems rather to scale the rocks than to plunge into the abyss. And, since the emotion is inexpressible, the whole work of the imagination here consists in the abduction of the natural spectacle. And so, by breaking up the movement artificially, the cataract seems like a natural catastrophe in slow motion. With a little bit more imagination, it becomes as still as a glacier."
Again, though never experienced flesh and blood, I've been aware of the existence of this sort of mental power. It stills visual images, it moves them, it is magically powerful. "(A)bduction" might be fractionally exaggerated, but basically is the process there. You truly carve that bit away to you, not physically, not just mentally also, but existentially, through your imagination. And Baudrillard's imagination here is approaching an inexpressible level, transfixing and surmounting the time-space of the cataract he observed (presumably by observation he perceived the fall).
"Word processing as the artificial paradise of writing. The computer as the artificial paradise of intelligence. Minitel as the artificial paradise of sex. Like a landscape where the camera lens would automatically correct the contours of the land, it is now impossible on some computers, to make spelling mistakes. On some others it is even impossible to exchange ideas. The machine corrects automatically."
See that? He is just one technological prophet. Leader of the Leftists, neo-Marxists, you name it. But notice that swag - his contempts on exchanging ideas. Such activity, in his view, is mechanically correctable. In other words, it's an error, a bug, an accident. Like spelling mistakes. But on the other hand, what's wrong with errors, bugs and accidents? Fundamentally they are no different to writing, intelligence, sex. All artifacts.
"....Thinking becomes a meterological precipitation of cerebral particles: rain and snow at the heart of the depression."
You just gotta admire his manipulation of words. I mean, thinking as "precipitation of cerebral particles", good, "rain and snow at the heart of the depression", better. Again you get the dual-layered, contradictive effect: you felt the satisfaction he's up to well, to the extent that you thirst for more of it; basically, it is what a good reading experience is all about.
"The whole art of politics today is to whip up popular indifference."
How many "likes" would that comment get, if posted now on any YouTube clip of Obama & Romney?
"The emergency aid teams for earthquake victims have precisely the same look to them and the same training as anti-terrorist squads. And victims dragged from the rubble are counted just like gunned-down terrorists."
Susan Sontag was critical of that, if I recalled correctly. And fairly though, that one is dehumanising to me, not to mention Sontag. Sontag accused Baudrillard as "never been to a battlefield", urging him to check the reality out. Indeed Baudrillard probably never ever attended a war physically. But how many are there did in their whole life, in this world? Which reality "more real" then, if multiple realities' existence gets tolerated? Baudrillard would deem my question pointless, that I could be sure.
"To move dust is an adventure in itself and moving spiders is even riskier. But to more books, which will never get back into the same disorder, really brings bad luck. It's as strange an idea as reorganising a brain by putting the neurons in alphabetical order."
He's essentially suggesting that inside a brain, it should be chaotic as his books. Yes, I missed the point, the context, he's just suggesting he's lazy. The hell? Go mind your own business, go back to China, you unimaginative imbecile.
(TBC)
Some quotes from this book, and my comments:
"A continent which, by its mass, deflects light rays and thus cannot be seen, deflects lines of force and thus cannot be encountered, deflects the radiation of conceptual influences and thus cannot be conceived.
"Such a mental object no doubt exists, but we shall never see it, except to spot the subtle distortion it engenders in reality.
"It is by pure analogy that we can sense it, by pure divination that we can call on it; it exists when our eyes are closed, like a lysergic phantasm on the retina or the eyelids. But it is enough to focus on it briefly to make it give off a complementary radiance.
"This is the metaphysics of the Green Ray: every sphere resolves down to an equatorial point between day and night.
"This is the absolute horizon of thought."
The opening paragraphs/stanzas, And what a start to a book succeeded with more of the that awesomeness. This level of imagination/creativity/whatever you call, is most likely untouchable by lay people like me. Not within this incarnation. I don't know much about Baudrillard's ideas of simulation, but I've had some pseudo-tantric experience. According to Weberian account of Buddhism (I refuse to call it a sociological account, as a sociology student AND a Buddhist), it was to let you memorise "some special kind of pattern of graphics". No. Not that indifferently simple. That particular pattern of graphics, plus your open & serene mind, equals to almost limitless mental power. I think, to an extent, what Baudrillard was up to here is close to that kind of state of mind. An absolute wisdom, as in Buddhists' terminology.
"The most difficult thing about the thinking of evil is to expurgate it of any notion of misfortune or guilt."
Indeed very difficult it is. One of the less provocative in the book. But it still conceals one pair of coupled concepts: "evil" & "guilt". If you feel guilty, you aren't exactly evil. Familiar faces, Freudian psychoanalysis maybe? Superegos & ids?
"...I detest the bustling activity of my fellow citizens, detest initiative urban values, efficient and pretentious. They are industrial qualities, whereas idleness is a natural energy."
You don't get convinced or "converted" by this kind of statement. But the way he puts it, this strong attitude towards the euphoria generated by the positivity he deemed as illusive, still impresses you, doesn't it?
"...The parabolic river falls are like gigantic breast of an animal, a horse's breast illumined with all the colours of the mist. The water takes so long to fall that, by an illusion akin to that of silent cinema, the mass of water seems rather to scale the rocks than to plunge into the abyss. And, since the emotion is inexpressible, the whole work of the imagination here consists in the abduction of the natural spectacle. And so, by breaking up the movement artificially, the cataract seems like a natural catastrophe in slow motion. With a little bit more imagination, it becomes as still as a glacier."
Again, though never experienced flesh and blood, I've been aware of the existence of this sort of mental power. It stills visual images, it moves them, it is magically powerful. "(A)bduction" might be fractionally exaggerated, but basically is the process there. You truly carve that bit away to you, not physically, not just mentally also, but existentially, through your imagination. And Baudrillard's imagination here is approaching an inexpressible level, transfixing and surmounting the time-space of the cataract he observed (presumably by observation he perceived the fall).
"Word processing as the artificial paradise of writing. The computer as the artificial paradise of intelligence. Minitel as the artificial paradise of sex. Like a landscape where the camera lens would automatically correct the contours of the land, it is now impossible on some computers, to make spelling mistakes. On some others it is even impossible to exchange ideas. The machine corrects automatically."
See that? He is just one technological prophet. Leader of the Leftists, neo-Marxists, you name it. But notice that swag - his contempts on exchanging ideas. Such activity, in his view, is mechanically correctable. In other words, it's an error, a bug, an accident. Like spelling mistakes. But on the other hand, what's wrong with errors, bugs and accidents? Fundamentally they are no different to writing, intelligence, sex. All artifacts.
"....Thinking becomes a meterological precipitation of cerebral particles: rain and snow at the heart of the depression."
You just gotta admire his manipulation of words. I mean, thinking as "precipitation of cerebral particles", good, "rain and snow at the heart of the depression", better. Again you get the dual-layered, contradictive effect: you felt the satisfaction he's up to well, to the extent that you thirst for more of it; basically, it is what a good reading experience is all about.
"The whole art of politics today is to whip up popular indifference."
How many "likes" would that comment get, if posted now on any YouTube clip of Obama & Romney?
"The emergency aid teams for earthquake victims have precisely the same look to them and the same training as anti-terrorist squads. And victims dragged from the rubble are counted just like gunned-down terrorists."
Susan Sontag was critical of that, if I recalled correctly. And fairly though, that one is dehumanising to me, not to mention Sontag. Sontag accused Baudrillard as "never been to a battlefield", urging him to check the reality out. Indeed Baudrillard probably never ever attended a war physically. But how many are there did in their whole life, in this world? Which reality "more real" then, if multiple realities' existence gets tolerated? Baudrillard would deem my question pointless, that I could be sure.
"To move dust is an adventure in itself and moving spiders is even riskier. But to more books, which will never get back into the same disorder, really brings bad luck. It's as strange an idea as reorganising a brain by putting the neurons in alphabetical order."
He's essentially suggesting that inside a brain, it should be chaotic as his books. Yes, I missed the point, the context, he's just suggesting he's lazy. The hell? Go mind your own business, go back to China, you unimaginative imbecile.
(TBC)
