Category Archives: Philosophy

Ruminations by Pierre Marilly

I can’t help but to be totally delighted by my brilliant friend Pierrot’s theoretical musings every single time (I definitely won’t fail to bring a notebook for our date on Wednsday!). This one on the title of my series “Vis-à-vis”:

dimanche 1 juin 2008

Tathata / sur Chin-Chin Wu

” Pour désigner la réalité, le bouddhisme dit sunya, le vide ; mais encore mieux : tathata, le fait d’être tel, d’être ainsi, d’être cela ; tat veut dire en sanskrit cela et ferait penser au geste du petit enfant qui désigne une chose du doigt et dit : ta, da, ça ! Une photographie se trouve toujours au bout de ce geste. Elle dit : ça, c’est ça, c’est tel ! [...] La photographie n’est jamais qu’un chant alterné de “voyez”, “vois”, “voici” ; elle pointe du doigt un certain vis-à-vis, et ne peut se sortir de ce pur langage déïctique.”

Barthes, Roland, La chambre claire, Paris, Cahiers du cinéma, Gallimard, 1980, p.15-16

Genitalia Thumbnail
Extrait de la série “Vis-à-vis”, Chin-Chin Wu, 2006-08

Mon amie Chin-Chin Wu est l’auteur d’une série de photographies qu’elle a rebaptisé récemment “Vis-à-vis”. Je m’interrogeais jusqu’à ce matin sur ce nouveau titre sans trouver de réponse particulière. Connaissant le grand soin qu’apporte cette artiste à fonder son propos sur une série de photographies qui rencontre, j’en suis certain, des réactions très variées, je déduis que ce titre fonctionne comme une petite annexe, une note de bas de page. Sans chercher à l’enfermer dans un sens particulier, ce qui serait de mon point de vue réducteur pour la série, le titre “Vis-à-vis” me semble être néanmoins un indice donné par Chin Chin sur les spécificités photographiques de son travail. Car il s’agit bien d’un pur travail photographique ; inscrit dans son histoire, conscient de ses codes, malmenant une tradition picturale, et jouant avec ce que l’outil photographie peut faire de mieux : brouiller les pistes, faire se superposer les grilles d’analyse du spectateur. L’érotique (la pulsion libidinale au centre de l’acte photographique), le pornographique (la tristesse de la chair offerte dans un éclairage uniforme, morcelée, défigurée), le médical (le point de vue clinique sur la femme et son appareil génital) et le politique (la connaissance des femmes de leur sexe, dans une approche féministe) dialoguent pour une fois dans un travail qui n’exclue aucun de ces champs, qui au contraire s’appuie sur la force polysémique de la photographie et s’enrichie par tous les discours qui y cohabitent.

Vis-à-vis, donc, est un terme qui suppose un échange, un dialogue, fait intervenir la notion du spectateur, du regardé-regardant plus précisément. On dit d’une vue qu’elle est sans vis-à-vis pour marquer l’absence d’un regard de l’extérieur vers l’intérieur, mais aussi pour signifier l’impossibilité de notre regard (puisque supposé voyeuriste) à pénétrer chez l’autre. Le vis-à-vis est un pacte silencieux du regard.

Et c’est précisément le regard, plus que le sexe, qui est au centre de cette oeuvre “Vis-à-vis”.

Currently listening :
Beethoven: Complete Sonatas for Pianoforte & Cello
Peter Wispelwey, Paul Komen
Release date: 1993-08-17

Meditation #1: Love is

Love is that state of being before and beyond all conceptualizations.  The minute you ask how much that person makes, or if he or she is married, you have already moved out of that state. Love has become a concept.

In that sense, it is very much like a religious illumination – direct, pure, and  irrevocably joyful. You know it has always been that strange and familiar part of you; it’s a recognition of home in yourself.

Different schools of Buddhism disagree on how we achieve illumination, just as none of us can agree on what love is. Some think of it as a winding path of constant positive effort: doing good deeds, reciting the scriptures, chanting mantras, and inch by inch approach illumination by devotion. In Chinese, it’s called漸悟, or gradual illumination. Others contend that illumination comes at us at the most unsuspected moment, when a receptive mind is suddenly triggered by mind maps whose dots we are unable to connect by common sense. This is called sudden illumination, or 頓悟.

This is love at first sight.

How do you know if you’ve reached illumination, or experienced true love?

Or do you start to see the futility of your questions?

Currently reading :
The Complete Book of Shaolin: Comprehensive Program for Physical, Emotional, Mental and Spiritual Development
By Wong Kiew Kit
Release date: 01 May, 2002

Triangle Relations

Wireless is faithless, and I’ve just gotten myself back on the Wifi network. Mom was here for about 9 days, which was short and long. That was true for both of us. We’re the only surviving members of our nucleus family of three. When Daddy Doll was alive, we had this powerful bond that seemed to exclude the rest of the family, i.e. Mommy.

Triangle relationships are very fascinating. My life seems to be full of these: Mommy, Daddy and I; me and my twin male cousins whom I loved and hated by turn, and with whom I formed and broke pacts; me and my “wife” back in boarding school, and the “daughter” we adopted (and sometimes tried to get rid of), and the resulting threesome “wedding portrait” at the local photographer’s. It is still the oddest piece of souvenir from my pubescent years.

When I was a kid, adults seemed to have the tact of bombarding kids with the “innocent” question of “who do you prefer the best – mommy or daddy?” By the way, my mom was a part of a sisterhood of three, and to add to the confusion, my cousins and I called all three sisters “mommy” and all their husbands “daddy” (don’t ask me why, I think it was linked to some Communist ideal of sort, and I still have three moms, but only one dad left from the original Communist days, having lost one to divorce and one to death). So the questions could also turn to, “Which mommy and which daddy do you prefer the best?”

My cousins were stupid enough to give the honest truth, including their rankings, and got subsequent punishment from invisible forces. I always told everybody, “I love mommy and daddy the same!” And the adults would nod their heads in approval, “What a smart kid!”

In fact, this was the watchword of mommy, “Share your toys! Love everyone the same!” Until this day, I cannot bring myself to say that I feel closer to cousin #1 than to cousin #2, or vice versa (I’m careful to add), for fear of being punished for my unfaithfulness and partiality. As a matter of fact, I am so out of touch with my feelings in this arena that I cannot answer to that question if my life depended on it.

Most people think that my concept of faithfulness is more than a little bit skewed. There are days that I don’t want to share my toys. And sometimes I really love one person more than anyone else. But I usually immediately tell myself that this is selfish thinking, and that I have to elevate myself to the status of a selfless saint, at any rate enlarge the couple to a triangle. In the end, there’s really no striving necessary in the formation of couples or triangles, or in the acquiring and giving up of toys. What is yours will be yours. What is meant to be will be. The dynamic is never static, ever-changing, as you are struggling in the very act of defining. This is like the flow of Yin and Yang, and the subsequent creation of all things from this generative force; or Brahma, Vishnu, and Siva – the Hindu trio of the creator, the preserver and the destroyer; or the Christian trinity – the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost…. All ancient wisdom seemed to have understood this principal of three and the ceaseless movement that is a part of our life in this universe.

In my case, it has been one long stupendous suspension of judgment facing the delicate threads of human tissue being constantly weaved and re-weaved, exactly like how as a child, I could watch in wonder for hours at ends my Chinese silkworms spin out their own miraculous universe.

Oh yeah, in case you still wonder, I’ve always loved both Mommy and Daddy the same, only differently.

© Post-Modern China Doll

p.s. I’ve got questions about private posts. I have cleared some of them out from MySpace and all diary is in Livejournal now, and everything there is private. I think the blogging function of MySpace sucks ass. Have tried WordPress and am thinking of integrating either Mambo or WordPress into my website. Does anybody have any suggestions?

Currently reading :
Curves to the Apple: The Reproduction of Profiles, Lawn of Excluded Middle, Reluctant Gravities
By Rosmarie Waldrop
Release date: 15 September, 2006

On Love (Part III from Gurdjieff’s early talks)

Prieuré, May 24, 1923

On Love

There are two kinds of love: one, the love of a slave; the other, which must be acquired by work. The first has no value at all; only the second has value, that is, love acquired through work. This is the love about which all religions speak.

If you love when “it” loves, it does not depend on you and so has no merit. It is what we call the love of a slave. You love even when you should not love. Circumstances make you love mechanically.

Real love is Chrisitian, religious love; with that love no one is born (???). For this love you must work. Some know it from childhood, others only in old age. If somebody has real love, he acquired it during his life. But it is very difficult to learn. And it is impossible to begin learning directly, on people. Every man touches another on the raw, makes you put on brakes and gives you very little chance to try.

Continue reading

The Education of Children (Part II from Gurdjieff’s early talks)

Currently reading :
Views from the Real World: Early Talks Moscow Essentuki Tiflis Berlin London Paris NY Chicago as Recollecte (Arkana)
By G. I. Gurdjieff
Release date: 19 July, 1991

New York, March 1, 1924

The Education of Children

Question: There is a way of educating children through suggestion during sleep. Is it any good?

Answer: This kind of suggestion is no better than a gradual poisoning, the destruction of the last vestige of will. Education is a very complicated thing. It must be many-sided. For example, it is wrong to give children nothing but physical exercises.

Generally, education is restricted to the formation of the mind. A child is made to learn poems by heart, like a parrot, without understanding anything, and parents are glad if he can do that. At school he learns things no less mechanically and, after graduating with honors, he nevertheless understands and feels nothing. In the development of his mind, he is as adult as a man of forty, but in his essence he remains a boy of ten. In his mind he is not afraid of anything, but in his essence he is afraid. His morals are purely automatic, purely external. Just as he learns poetry by heart, so he learns morals. But a child’s essence, his inner life, is left to itself, without any guidance. If a man is sincere with himself, he has to admit that neither children nor adults have any morals. Our morality is all theoretical and automatic for, if we are sincere, we can see how bad we are.

Education is nothing but a mask which has nothing to do with nature. People think one upbringing is better than another, but in actual fact they are all the same. All people are the same, yet each is quick to see a mote in another’s eye. We are all blind to our worst faults. If a man is sincere with himself, he enters into another’s position and knows that he himself is no better. If you wish to be better, try to help another. But as people are now, they hinder each other and run each down. Morever, a man cannot help another, cannot lift another up, because he cannot even help himself.

Before all else you must think of yourself, you must try to lift yourself. You must be an egoist. Egoism is the first station on the way to altruism, to Christianity. But it must be egoism for a good purpose, and this is very difficult. We bring up our children to be ordinary egoists and the present state of things is the result. Yet we must always judge them by ourselves. We know what we are like; we may be sure that with modern education children will be, at best, the same as ourselves. Continue reading

Views from the Real World – Early Talks of Gurdjieff

To be able to love and be loved deeply, without unnecessary suffering and needless attachment, that is the gift that has been given to me, as I slowly come to the end of a long dark tunnel.

I have been undergoing another intense spiritual search, and wanted to share some passages from G.I. Gurdjieff’s early talks:

Currently reading :
Views from the Real World: Early Talks Moscow Essentuki Tiflis Berlin London Paris NY Chicago as Recollecte (Arkana)
By G. I. Gurdjieff
Release date: 19 July, 1991


Begin the Search, Essentuki, About 1918

If a man knows how to be sincere with himself – not sincere as the word is usually understood, but mercilessly sincere – then, to the question “What are you?” he will not expect a comforting reply. So now, without waiting for you to come nearer to experiencing for yourselves what I am speaking about, I suggest that, in order to understand better what I mean, each of you should now ask himself the question “What am I?” I am certain that 95% of you will be puzzled by this question and will answer with another one:”What do you mean?”

Continue reading

Thank you Mr. Jean Baudrillard

Perhaps our eyes are merely a blank film which is taken from us after our deaths to be developed elsewhere and screened as our life story in some infernal cinema or dispatched as microfilm into the sidereal void.

-Jean Baudrillard

When I got back from China in early January, Brigitte called me up. And before saying “Happy New Year” or “how was your move,” I bursted out “when am I going to meet Jean Baudrillard? I still want to meet him!”

She felt very hurt and unloved, “In France, we say ‘hello’ and ‘how are you’ first, young lady!”
“Hello. So when am I going to meet Baudrillard?”
I’m known amongst my cloest friends for saying exactly what’s on my mind.

“He’s been sick. But I’ll present you.”
“OK! When?”
“I’ll arrange!”
“Tell me when!”

I wanted to show him my photographs on the female genitalia, elicit a reaction, get an autograph on my copy of “Cool Memory,” and just bathe in the presence of what was possibly the last tangible link to the French theory hall of fame – Foucault, Barthes, Deleuze, Derrida, Baudrillard… Those names were the mental pin-ups of my after-school and in-between-class intellectual fantasies, each one as sexy and titillating as they were dead. Except Baudrillard, that is, until last Tuesday -

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

Thank you Jean Baudrillard, for all those quickened heartbeats and missed nights of sleep, as we sat over coffee, cigarettes, rum, and calvados with Pierrot, heatedly debating, thinking for, with, and against you. You will be greatly missed, but we know you will remain among us.

© Post-Modern China Doll

Obituary taken from the culture section of Libération, Tuesday March 6, 2007:

 

Le sociologue et philosophe Jean Baudrillard, mort mardi à Paris à l’âge de 77 ans des suites d’une longue maladie, a porté pendant 40 ans un regard féroce sur la société de consommation, dont il a dénoncé l’insignifiance et prophétisé le déclin.

 

Issu de la mouvance de mai 1968, ce penseur de renommée internationale, et également photographe à l’oeuvre reconnue, a élaboré une critique radicale des médias, baignée d’humour noir et d’un pessimisme joyeux qu’il a instillé dans une cinquantaine de livres.

Né le 20 juillet 1929 à Reims, germaniste de formation et traducteur de Brecht, proche des situationnistes de Guy Debord dans les années 1960, Jean Baudrillard enseigne la sociologie à partir de 1966 à l’Université de Nanterre.

“Compte tenu de mes diplômes, je n’avais pas le choix. En 1965, la sociologie était la seule discipline qui restait ouverte. Au début, j’étais obligé d’apprendre au fur et à mesure ce que je devais enseigner à mes élèves”, expliquait-il. En 1968 parait son premier livre de sociologie, “Le système des objets”, suivi en 1970 de “La société de consommation”.

Jean Baudrillard s’éloigne ensuite du marxisme et poursuit ses recherches en franc-tireur. “Les masses” ne sont plus pour lui les victimes de l’ordre social, mais les complices de cet ordre qui les enrichit, à cette époque des trente glorieuses finissantes.

Visage rond derrière de fortes lunettes, il tourne alors en dérision la prétention de la gauche unie de changer la vie et celle des intellectuels de peser sur les choix politiques. Sa philosophie, fondée sur la critique de la pensée scientifique traditionnelle, développe des idées fondées sur la simulation et la séduction.

“Intellectuel dégagé”, pour les uns, “fossoyeur des utopies” pour les autres, Baudrillard est un penseur inclassable, devenu suspect à gauche, capable d’exhumer la pensée réactionnaire du philosophe Joseph de Maistre dans “La transparence du mal” (1990).

“Il faut vivre en intelligence avec le système et en révolte contre ses conséquences. Il faut vivre avec l’idée que nous avons survécu au pire”, soutient-il alors.

Ce style cinglant, fait d’aphorismes parfois hermétiques, devient sa marque de fabrique. “Ce que j’écrirai aura de moins en moins de chance d’être compris. Mais ça, c’est mon problème. Je suis dans une logique de défi”, prévient-il.

En 1986, un voyage aux Etats-Unis, dont il rentre subjugué, lui inspire “Amérique”, feu d’artifice d’images et de traits philosophiques : “L’Amérique est la version originale de la modernité, nous en sommes la version doublée et sous-titrée”… “L’Amérique, c’est l’utopie réalisée”.

Fuyant les médias qu’il s’évertue à décortiquer, il consacre en 2001 dans Libération plusieurs chroniques à l’émission “Loft Story”, “laboratoire d’une convivialité de synthèse, d’une sociabilité télégéniquement modifiée”.

Mais Baudrillard s’intéresse à tout ce qui fait l’actualité et les attentats du 11 septembre lui inspirent “Requiem pour les Twins Towers” l’année suivante.

Considéré tour à tour comme un nihiliste ou un moraliste, il a souvent été vivement critiqué. “En fin de compte, on peut se demander ce qu’il resterait de la pensée de Baudrillard si l’on retirait tout le vernis qui la recouvre”, écrivaient ainsi en 1997 Alan Sokal et Jean Bricmont dans “Les impostures intellectuelles”.

Jean Baudrillard se voyait lui en résistant. “La lâcheté intellectuelle, soutenait-il, est devenue la véritable discipline olympique de notre temps”.

Update: Of course, The Guardian carries the best obituaries, as always:

Philosopher and sociologist who blurred the boundaries between reality and simulation

Steven Poole
Wednesday March 7, 2007
Guardian Unlimited

The French philosopher and sociologist, Jean Baudrillard, at his home in Paris, in 2001. Photograph: Eric Feferberg/AFP

The French philosopher and sociologist, Jean Baudrillard, at his home in Paris, in 2001. Photograph: Eric Feferberg/AFP
Jean Baudrillard’s death did not take place. “Dying is pointless,” he once wrote. “You have to know how to disappear.” The New Yorker reported a reading the French sociologist gave in a New York gallery in 2005. A man from the audience, with the recent death of Jacques Derrida in mind, mentioned obituaries and asked Baudrillard: “What would you like to be said about you? In other words, who are you?” Baudrillard replied: “What I am, I don’t know. I am the simulacrum of myself.”

Baudrillard, whose simulacrum departed at the age of 77, attracted widespread notoriety for predicting that the first Gulf war, of 1991, would not take place. During the war, he said it was not really taking place. After its conclusion, he announced, imperturbably, that it had not taken place. This prompted some to characterise him as yet another continental philosopher who revelled in a disreputable contempt for truth and reality.Yet Baudrillard was pointing out that the war was conducted as a media spectacle. Rehearsed as a wargame or simulation, it was then enacted for the viewing public as a simulation: as a news event, with its paraphernalia of embedded journalists and missile’s-eye-view video cameras, it was a videogame. The real violence was thoroughly overwritten by electronic narrative: by simulation.

Such had been Baudrillard’s name for the defining problem of the age since the 1970s, when he wrote that the Marxian problem of class struggle had been replaced, in the “post-industrial” era, with the problem of simulation. He thus anticipated, by a decade or two, later arguments about the nature of “virtual reality”. Pop culture paid tribute to Baudrillard’s prescience in Andy and Larry Wachowski’s 1999 film The Matrix, about a near-future Earth where human society is a simulation designed by malign machines to keep us enslaved. Hacker hero Neo (Keanu Reeves) hides his contraband software in a hollowed-out copy of one of the philosopher’s books, and rebel chief Morpheus (Laurence Fishburne) quotes Baudrillard’s most famous formula: “Welcome to the desert of the real.”

Baudrillard was invited to collaborate on the sequels, but declined. He later protested wryly that The Matrix had got him wrong: “The most embarrassing part of the film is that the new problem posed by simulation is confused with its classical, Platonic treatment … The Matrix is surely the kind of film about the matrix that the matrix would have been able to produce.”

Baudrillard was born in the cathedral town of Reims in north-eastern France. His grandparents were peasants and his parents became civil servants. He was the first of his family to go to university, studying German at the Sorbonne in Paris, and he later said that this led to a break with his family and cultural milieu. In 1956 he began teaching German at a French lycée, and in the early 1960s published essays on literature for the journal Les Temps Modernes, as well as translating works of Bertolt Brecht and Peter Weiss.

In 1966, Baudrillard joined the University of Nanterre, a small, fiercely radical institution that was to become notable as the incubator of the Mouvement du 22 Mars and its subsequent role in the évènements of May 1968. (Baudrillard later said he “participated” in the student revolts.) That same year, his first book, The System of Objects, was published. With the sociologist Henri Lefebvre and the cultural critic Roland Barthes as his intellectual mentors, he gave sharp, ironic readings of interior-design materials, gadgets, washing powder and other everyday phenomena.

In subsequent works, including The Consumer Society (1970), The Mirror of Production (1973), and Forget Foucault (1977), Baudrillard developed arguments about the increasing power of the “object” over the “subject” in modern society, and the way in which protest and resistance were increasingly absorbed and turned into fuel by the symbolic “system” of capitalism. During this period, he also wrote on art and architecture for the journal Utopie.

The 1981 volume Simulacra and Simulation (the book that later appeared in The Matrix) gained a wide audience, and Baudrillard soon found himself a globetrotting academic superstar, discoursing on his themes of “seduction” (the term that escapes the binary opposition of “production” and “destruction”) and “hyper-reality” (the simulated realm that is “more real than the real”). In 1986 he moved from Nanterre, which had, he lamented, become “normalised”, to the university of Paris-IX Dauphine.

Baudrillard characterised the 1990s, with its wishful illusions about the “end of history”, as a “stagnant” period in which events were on strike. Eventually the strike was broken by the attacks on the US of September 11 2001. Baudrillard called it “the ultimate event, the mother of all events”.

“It is the terrorist model,” he wrote, “to bring about an excess of reality, and have the system collapse beneath that excess.”

Subsequently, for Baudrillard, there was no longer any need for the media to virtualise events, as in the first Gulf war, since the war’s participants had thoroughly internalised the rules of simulation. His 2004 essay, War Porn, observed how the photographs from Abu Ghraib enacted scenes of fetishistic pornography, concluding: “It is really America that has electrocuted itself.”

Baudrillard took to calling his works “theory fictions”: because the present is always more fantastical than the most lurid science fiction, “theory” must compete with it on an imaginative level. So Baudrillard offered himself as an extrapolator, a canary in the cultural coalmine. “My work is paradoxical,” he explained. “It’s surrealist like fiction.” He found a sympathetic soul in the novelist JG Ballard, who called him “the most important French thinker of the last 20 years”. (In 1974, Baudrillard had hailed Ballard’s Crash as “the first great novel of the universe of simulation”.)

Baudrillard once wore a gold lamé suit with mirrored lapels while reading his poetry in a Las Vegas bar. If he didn’t take himself particularly seriously, his critics complained that he didn’t take anything else seriously either. A recurring charge was that it was politically and morally irresponsible, at the very least, to speak of the “unreality” of modern war, because to do so was to ignore the realities of killing and suffering. Baudrillard’s response, in his 2004 book The Lucidity Pact, or The Intelligence of Evil, was laconic: “The reality-fundamentalists equip themselves with a form of magical thinking that confuses message and messenger: if you speak of the simulacrum, then you are a simulator; if you speak of the virtuality of war, then you are in league with it and have no regard for the hundreds of thousands of dead … it is not we, the messengers of the simulacrum, who have plunged things into this discredit, it is the system itself that has fomented this uncertainty that affects everything today.”

One sceptical British interviewer called Baudrillard a “philosopher clown”, a description to which he probably would not have objected, instead taking it as an invitation to think about the social function of clowns. As he once argued: “It is the task of radical thought, since the world is given to us in unintelligibility, to make it more unintelligible, more enigmatic, more fabulous.” He was an aphorist. “Contemporary art is contemporary only with itself,” he growled; or: “Our sentimentality towards animals is a sure sign of the disdain in which we hold them.”

Baudrillard, who is survived by his wife Marine, had once written a playful account of his personal evolution, from “pataphysician” (a scientist of imaginary solutions) at 20, to “viral” at 60. When I saw him in 2000, he was 70 years old. What was he now? He chuckled. “Well, let’s see, at 70, I would say that I am … transfini. Beyond the end. It was my fateful strategy to go beyond the concept, so as to see what happens beyond.” Now, perhaps, he knows.

· Jean Baudrillard, philosopher and sociologist, born July 29 1929; died March 6 2007