Friday, January 2, 2009

Why was she reading Baudrillard?

Thought of the Day.

"Is any given bombing in Italy the work of leftist extremists; or of extreme right-wing provocation; or staged by centrists to bring every terrorist extreme into disrepute and to shore up its own failing power; or again, is it a police-inspired scenario in order to appeal to calls for public security? All this is equally true..."

-Baudrillard (Simulacra and Simulations)

Reading this sentence silenced me for a long time.

I have often had the feeling that I don't really need to know what's not on Wikipedia. There you usually find the universe of common knowledge or reasons for popular interest. You can trace the geneology of a reference, from an interview or movie, to the fan-FAQ's, to the blogs of obsure pop-study, to the continually churning reference-iconography of what we consider the universe of everything possible or knowable, or worth name-dropping. All this is transparent enough to make most conversation nauseating but also easily avoidable with a little research. Fugazi, Miyazaki, Alakazaam!

Science is one thing, however any topic is only as useful as it can discussed with others. Real truth deduced from common knowledge and common sense. The cognitive dissonance of a lie, or a loaded word, can often be easily spotted, if not immediately understood. You have to smash icons together, forever. Take any frame of reference to its natural apocalyptic conclusion. But how many people are as interested in really discovering something personally revealing as they are interested in arguing a point and winning?

My point is: You have to keep bombing Italy.

All this has reminded me of our failed attempt last night to come up of a list of things that we fear. There was only one answer, and from me. "That I should have been more materialistic..."

No comments: