Finding Versailles

First off, a big thanks to Ken Rufo for shedding some light on Beaudrillard and his theories.

Beaudrillard's use of the hyperreal can be visibly seen and experienced by many of us in society today. His description of the hyperreal as relating experience through simulation. Simulation refers to reality as being inaccessible as there is no reference point as to where reality is. Thus the hyperreal is when we try to access the real through simulated experience. I think we can see this in many ways. I find it is most relatable to traveling and understanding other cultures.

For example, last May I was travelling in France with some friends. The top thing on my list as well as my friend Stephanie's was to visit Versailles. (For those of you who aren't oppsessed with Marie Antoinette like I am, that was her primary residence prior to being sent to the guillotine during the French Revolution.) Anyways Stephanie and I arrived at Versailles and I noticed something wasn't settling with her. "Guys... I know this is supposed to be Versailles, but it is not Versailles." She then went on a long detailed description of what the palace should like. To make a long story short we were at Versailles, we were actually just on the other side(which is never captured visually)..... what is the point of this story? Well, what Stephanie and I were experiencing was the hyperreal at its finest. We know Versailles through images, history books, and even movies like the most recent, Marie Antoinette. We, but especially Steph, had a preconceived notion as what Versailles was and what it should look like. Prior to coming to Versailles, we already experienced Versailles and thought we knew the reality of the palace. Simulation of places is often what people experience in terms of areas they are not familiar with. Most of us have simulated experiences of areas that we have never been to, the alps, the taj mahal, the pyrimads, etc. Thus, as I learned when you go to the source to experience it, you may find yourself very surprised. Beaudrillard has a very interesting point with the hyperreal and how it has impacted society, escpecially in understanding areas that we are unfamiliar with.

"The birth of the reader must be at the cost of the death of the Author."- Barthes

In Roland Barthes' Death of the Author, Barthes notes that when the author dies there is no longer holds on the text for meaning. The text becomes free and thus more meaning can be developed. I would like to explore the idea of the destination of the text. " A text's unity lies not in its origin but in its destination."- Barthes 189. Barthes is addressing that true meaning of a text lies within the reader. The questions consequently follow are: What is a text? What is a reader? As for the text we view it as a scriptor or words which can only be understood by the use of other words. As for the reader, the "I" notion follows this and thus the text is given an innumerable amount of meaning pertaining back to the reader. Is this a good thing or a bad thing? For the main reason that it opens up meaning, I consider it good. The reader is allowed to explores meanings pertinant to them without having to retrace back to a particular source. By allowing the reader to relate in his or her own way to the text, multiple meanings are produced.
On a different note, it is interesting to notice authorship in blogs.

I stumbled across a blog on how pseudonymity is used and how in the blog world it gives access to those who seek deviant behavior, to partake in such. Kathryn Cramer (I assume this is her real name since she's blogged numerous times against anonymous and pseudonymity in blogs) points out the deviant behavior as the aggressive commenter. She states that no one truly desires to be anonymous when writing in blogs because us bloggers always are writing to express ourselves and our thoughts. Thus we are putting out in the public something about us that matters. She stresses that many people "reject," post negative comments on blogs because they themselves feel rejected. I personally disagree with this. What about a blogger that is discusses the campaign and posts false info about a candidate? Another blogger may comment to clarify to other bloggers. Many people, especially since it ties with politics may see this as an attack, when really it is just a manner of expression and freedom of speech. I am aware that there are some "snerts" (as she referred to nasty commenters) that attack the same blogger over and over again, but I think to say that the rejection of something shows rejection within that blogger is completly absurd.
In another one of Ms.Cramer's post she discusses how happy she was that amazon.com, makes people publish their real names when they comment on a product. They trademarked the Real Name feature. I thought this was very interesting in the sense now that with technology everything we write will follow us and be automatically connected to the person. I'm glad that I can still use a pseudonym on blogs, while I grapple with theory.

Qui où Quoi ?

The questions of who or what are at the foundation of philosophy. Derrida brings up the question in regards to love. Are we in love with someone or something about someone? This question calls for deconstruction. We call upon ourselves to look into the unconscious and conscious of our relationship. But even then someone is always relative to that something. Therefore, can we completely separate the two in regards to love and say we have the choice of one or the other? With the next section delving into psycho-analytic theory, more answers to this question of love will hopefully arise.
Another aspect that Derrida brings up about love is that it is narcissistic. I normally would have never thought of love in this manner because normally most see that with love comes some form of giving. After seeing the documentary, I can now see why love is narcissistic. Recognizing the needs of others in a relationship is valid, but recognizing ours first is often times more important to us. The other’s duty is to assist in filling the void of the needs of the self. I don’t think many people are naturally pure narcissists when it comes to love but I can see where love and narcissism are intertwined.

Derrida on Film

It is very clear that Derrida resists being interviewed. He does not resist or reject the interviewers. Instead, he makes it very clear to them that he will only be responsive in the way he wishes to be. An example of this would is when Derrida is questioned about his relationship with Maquerite, he said he would only provide "superficial" information, a response the interviewer did not want to hear. Derrida makes viewers feel as though the process of interviewing is irrelevant, as recordings are seen as an image or symbol. In the documentary, Derrida makes it known that we are too consumed by media and what is recorded can be labeled false. He states that we are always being recorded and watched and thus we have been accustomed to it. Derrida himself shows that he is used to being recorded, this is shown to viewers when a camera crew puts a mic on him while he is in mid conversation with guests at an event. Derrida acts as though he is not fazed. He confirms that we are always being documented and recorded.
At the near end of his career and his life, it is evident that Derrida took the opportunity to express to viewers what he thought was important. He made this clear during an interview where the sitcom Seinfeld was brought up. When the question of the show was raised, he looked at the interviewer in disgrace and said that society needed to get back to reading and studying. Proving what Derrida wanted from society all along, and that was to think.

My take on Saussure

“in language there are only differences without positive terms" (40)

Saussure is stating that the way to understand language is by having differences. We understand dark by understanding light. We know something and understand it by what it is not. For example, we understand happiness and joy by knowing that it is not sorrow. I believe when Saussure states that differences are without positive terms, he is referring to relativity. Saussure is stating that the structure of the word will stay the same but its value and meaning may differ. Thus, there can be no definitive term because it is relative to its society and likely to change in time.
It is also important to note the relationship between the signified and signifier when reading Saussure. The signified and signifier break down the linguistic structure and give value and meaning to language. The signifier relates to the sound or image and the concept or icon represents the signified. Thus the two representations give meaning. When Saussure references that differences are not positive, he is referring to the possibility of the signified (icon or concept) being susceptible to change and modification.
What I take from Saussure is that our understanding of language is based on binary opposition, understanding language by what it does not represent or symbolize. I understand Saussure and structuralism by simply viewing language in a contextual form, looking at pattern, symmetry and unity within the text.
I view the reading and discussion on post structuralism earlier this week as an aid to understanding Saussure’s statement. Post structuralism provides another theory to compare what Saussure was addressing. Saussure’s argument was based more on linguistics whereas post structuralists are more abstract and base their theory on philosophical terms.