/lit/ - Literature

Anyone interested in some critique of Baudrillard? Simulacra are common signs of third stage of signification, first having signs signifying reality based on perception of God and the nature, which is premodern mode of signification, second incorporating exchange value of the capital and signs in their classical, de Saussere's way, marking modern stage of signification development. Postmodern state of sign comes from signs having two possible references: reality, which is their "life", or, in marxist terms, their use value; second possible reference is other signs, their exchange value. Now simulation is a situation in which borders between two possible references of a sign blurs. Authenticity and artificiality are now empty, lacking meaning terms (as in Debord's theory). It cannot be explained simply by saying, that signs signifying other signs are exchangable for signs signyfing non-signs. We need the term simulation. Simulating and faking have same starting position: lack of certain feature. But their dynamic is different: simulating becomes simulated. Therefore simulacrum isn't just a sign signifying other signs, it's a sign signifying other sign and having a status of a sign signifying non-signs. That's how hiper-reality is created. And here comes Baudrillard's apocalyptic imagination: signs having once entered third stage of simulation, post-modern hyper-real stage of signification, cannot point at reality again, because reality becomes reality of simmulacra.
What is to be considered about this theory is what role does history plays in the linguistic system development? Three stages of singification are tied with three stages of history. But consider this: why would system, having inherent possibility of changing in certaing direction, it being directon of simulation of third stage, not do it instantly? We need to seperate the chronological and logical requirements. Logical requirements are met on the very begining of systems life, and so, it's every possibility must be actualised. Every stage of system's development happend at the very same moment at system's beginning. If this is true, then continnum of facts would not be history of system's development, but history of system's users growing awarness of the system. The history would follow logical development. And that's how Baudrillard's thought can get traced back to Hegel.
If the asertion that if logical requirements of system development are met, the develompent must happen in the very moment they're met, is not true, then the question for the role of history can be asked: is linguistic system actually determined by it?
If my asertion is true, then: a) cultural signification was always in at least third stage. Our times wouldn't differ from any at all, making it conceptually possible to go back to other modes of signification. b) third stage doesn't have to be the last one: what would be later called the progress, would be us realizng the system.

>>9638699
Rudolf Otto, Gadamer, Derrida. In this order.