Jean Baudrillard - Radical Thought

8/14/2019 Jean Baudrillard - Radical Thought

1/27


2/27

it is, but that does not make it more real in any respect. "The

most powerful instinct of man is to be in conflict with truth, and

with the real."

The belief in truth is part of the elementary forms ofreligious life. It is a weakness of understanding, of common-

sense. At the same time, it is the last stronghold for the

supporters of morality, for the apostles of the legality of the

real and the rational, according to whom the reality principle

cannot be questioned. Fortunately, nobody, not even those

who teach it, lives according to this principle, and for a good

reason: nobody really believes in the real. Nor do they believe

in the evidence of real life. This would be too sad.

But the good apostles come back and ask: how can youtake away the real from those who already find it hard to live

and who, just like you and me, have a right to claim the real

and the rational? The same insidious objection is proclaimed

in the name of the Third World: How can you take away

abundance when some people are starving to death? Orperhaps: How can you take away the class struggle from all

the peoples that never got to enjoy their Bourgeois revolution?

Or again: How can you take away the feminist and egalitarian

aspirations from all the women that have never heard of

women's rights? If you don't like reality, please do not make

everybody else disgusted with it! This is a question of

democratic morality: Do not let Billancourt despair!HYPERLINK

"http://www.egs.edu/faculty/baudrillard/baudrillard-radical-

thought.html" \l "note1#note1" 1. You can never let peopledespair.


3/27


4/27

is no doubt a comforting perspective, one which is based on

meaning and deciphering. This is also a polarity, similar to that

used by ready-made dialectical and philosophical solutions.

The other thought, on the contrary, is ex-centric from the real.

It is an "ex-centering" HYPERLINK"http://www.egs.edu/faculty/baudrillard/baudrillard-radical-

thought.html" \l "note2#note2" 2. of the real world and,consequently, it is alien to a dialectic which always plays on

adversarial poles. It is even alien to critical thought which

always refers to an ideal of the real. To some extent, this

thought is not even a denial of the concept of reality. It is an

illusion, that is to say a "game" HYPERLINK


thought.html" \l "note3#note3" 3. played with desire (which thisthought puts "into play"), just like metaphor is a "game" played

with truth. This radical thought comes neither from a

philosophical doubt nor from a utopian transference

HYPERLINK"http://www.egs.edu/faculty/baudrillard/baudrillard-radical-

thought.html" \l "note4#note4" 4. (which always supposes anideal transformation of the real). Nor does it stem from an

ideal transcendence. It is the "putting into play" HYPERLINK


thought.html" \l "note5#note5" 5. of this world, the material andimmanent illusion of this so-called "real" world - it is a non-critical, non-dialectical thought. So, this thought appears to be

coming from somewhere else. In any case, there is an

incompatibility between thought and the real. Between thought

and the real, there is no necessary or natural transition. Not an


5/27

"alternation," HYPERLINK


thought.html" \l "note6#note6" 6. not an alternative either: onlyan "alterity" HYPERLINK


thought.html" \l "note7#note7" 7. keeps them under pressureHYPERLINK


thought.html" \l "note8#note8" 8.. Only fracture, distance andalienation safeguard the singularity of this thought, the

singularity of being a singular event, similar in a sense to thesingularity of the world through which it is made into an event.

Things probably did not always happen this way. Onemay dream of a happy conjunction of idea and reality, in the

shadow of the Enlightenment and of modernity, in the heroic

ages of critical thought. But that thought, which operated

against a form of illusion - superstitious, religious, or

ideological - is substantially over. And even if that thought hadsurvived its catastrophic secularization in all the political

systems of the 20th century, the ideal and almost necessary

relationship between concept and reality would in any case

have been destroyed today. That thought disappeared under

the pressure of a gigantic simulation, a technical and mental

one, under the pressure of a precession of models to the

benefit of an autonomy of the virtual, from now on liberated

from the real, and of a simultaneous autonomy of the real that

today functions for and by itself - motu propio- in a deliriousperspective, infinitely self-referential. Expelled, so to speak,

from its own frame, from its own principle, pushed toward its


6/27

extraneity, the real has become an extreme phenomenon. So,

we no longer can think of it as real. But we can think of it as

"ex-orbitated," as if it was seen from another world - as an

illusion then.

Let's ponder over what could be a stupefying experience:the discovery of another real world, different from ours. Ours,

one day, was discovered. The objectivity of this world was

discovered, just like America was discovered, more or less at

the same period. But what was discovered can never be

created again. That's how reality was discovered, and is still

created (or the alternate version: this is how reality was

created, which is still being discovered). Why wouldn't there

be as many real worlds as there are imaginary ones? Why

would there be only one real world? Why such a mode of

exception? In reality, the notion of a real world existing among

all other possible worlds is unimaginable. It is unthinkable,

except perhaps as a dangerous superstition. We must stay

away from that, just as critical thought once stayed away (inthe name of the real!) from religious superstition. Thinkers,

give it another try!

In any case, the two orders of thought are irreconcilable.They each follow their own path without blending into one

another. At best, they slide on one another, like tectonic

plates, and from time to time their collision or their subduction

creates fault lines inside which reality is engulfed. Fatality isalways at the crossing point of these two lines. Similarly,

radical thought is at the violent crossing point of sense and

non-sense, of truth and non-truth, of the continuation of the

world and the continuation of nothingness.


7/27

In contrast to the discourse of reality and rationality, whichbets on the fact that there is something (some meaning) rather

than nothing, and which, in the last analysis, wants to be built

on the preservative notion of an objective and decipherable

world, radical thought bets on the illusion of the world. This

thought wants to be illusion, restituting non-veracity to the

facts, non- signification to the world, and formulating the

reverse hypothesis that there may be nothing rather than

something, tracking down this nothingness which runs under

the apparent continuation of meaning.

The radical prediction is always that of a non-reality ofthe facts, of an illusion of the factual. It merely starts with theforeboding of this illusion, but never fuses with the objective

state of things. Any fusion of this type would be similar to

mistaking a messenger for his message, which still today

consists in killing the messenger who always brings the bad

news (for example, the news that all our values are null, that

the real is uncertain, that certain events do not "take place"HYPERLINK


thought.html" \l "note9#note9" 9.). Any fusion of the thought (ofwriting, of language) with the real - a so-called "faithfulness of

the real" with a thought that has made the real emerge in all of

its configurations - is hallucinatory. It is moreover the result of

a total misinterpretation of language, of the fact that languageis an illusion in its very movement, that it carries this

continuation of emptiness or nothingness at the very core of

what it says, and that it is in all its materiality a deconstruction

of what it signifies. Just as the photograph (the image)


8/27

connotes an erasure, the death of what it represents, that

which gives the photograph its intensity, what gives intensity

to writing, be it the writing of a fiction or the writing of a

theoretical fiction, is emptiness, an underlying nothingness, an

illusion of meaning, an ironic dimension of language, which iscorollary to an ironic dimension of the facts themselves, which

are never what they are - in all meanings: they are never more

than what they are, and they are always only what they are - a

perfect . The irony of the facts, in their miserable reality, is

precisely that they are only what they are. At least, that is what

they are supposed to mean: "the real is the real." But, by this

very fact (so to speak), they are necessarily beyond [truth]

because factual existence is impossible: nothing is totally

evidentiary without becoming an enigma. Reality, in general, is

too evident to be true.

It is this ironic transfiguration through language whichconstitutes the event of language. And it is on a restitution of

this fundamental illusion of the world and language thatthought must work, without however taking language in its

literality, where the messenger is mistaken for the message,

and thus already sacrificed.

The two modes of thought present radically opposedprojects: one hopes to reveal the objective reality of this world

but wants to be a distinct thought; the other seeks to restore

an illusion, of which it is an integral part. One seeks a totalgravitation, a concentric effect of meaning. The other seeks to

be anti-gravitational and to reach an "ex-centering" of reality, a

global attraction of the void toward the periphery (Jarry).

The requirement of this thought is double and


9/27

contradictory. It does not consist in analyzing the world to

extract from it an improbable truth. It does not adapt itself

dialectically to the facts and abstract from them some logical

construction. It is much more subtle than that, and more

perverse as well. This thought consists in putting into place aform, a matrix of illusion and disillusion, a strange attracting

force, so that a seduced reality will be able to spontaneously

feed on it. This thought will also be implacably self-fulfilling

(you just have, from time to time, to displace the "object"

HYPERLINK


thought.html" \l "note10#note10" 10. a bit). Indeed, reality onlyasks to be submitted to hypotheses, so that it can fulfill

HYPERLINK


thought.html" \l "note11#note11" 11. all of them: this is reality'sown trick and vengeance. A theoretical ideal would be to put

into place some theses so that they could be denied by realityand so that reality would have no choice but to oppose them

violently and thus unmask them. For reality is an illusion, and

any thought must first try to unmask it. For this purpose, reality

itself must remain masked and must shape itself as a decoy,

without even thinking or caring about its own truth. Reality

must place its pride in never being an instrument of analysis,

or a critical instrument, because it is the world that mustproceed to its own analysis. It is the world, not reality, that

must be revealed not as a truth, but as an illusion.

We must trap reality, we must go faster than reality. Theidea too must go faster than its own shadow. But if the idea


10/27

goes too fast, even its shadow faints: no longer having the

faintest idea... HYPERLINK


thought.html" \l "note12#note12" 12. Words go faster thansignification. But if they go too fast, everything turns into sheer

madness: an ellipse of meaning may even cause one to lose

one's taste for the sign. What can we exchange this work, this

shadow, this intellectual economy and patience for? What can

we sell it to the devil for? It is hard to tell. In fact, we are the

orphans of a reality that came too late and which is only, like

truth, an "official report" in "delayed time."

The ultimate prize HYPERLINK"http://www.egs.edu/faculty/baudrillard/baudrillard-radical-

thought.html" \l "note13#note13" 13. is when an ideadisappears as an idea to become a thing among other things.

That's where it finds its completion. Having become con-

substantial with the surrounding world, the idea no longer has

to appear as an idea and no longer has to be supported assuch. A vanishing of the idea through a silent dissemination,

and of course an antinomy of any intellectual celebration. An

idea is never destined to burst open but on the contrary to

fade away in the world, in the trans-appearance the idea gives

to the world, and in the trans-appearance of the world as it

was expressed by the idea. A book is finished only when its

object has vanished. Its substance must not leave any marks.It is as if it were a perfect crime. Whatever its object, writing

must allow illusion to radiate and turn it into an elusive

enigma: unable to be received by the specialists and the

Realpolitikers of the concept. The objective of writing is to alter


11/27

its object, to seduce it, to make it disappear from its own

vision. Writing aims at a total resolution, a poetic resolution as

Saussure would have it, a resolution marked by a rigorous

dispersion in the name of God.

If the thought enunciates an object as a truth, it is only as achallenge to this object's own self-fulfillment. The trouble

HYPERLINK


thought.html" \l "note14#note14" 14. with reality (reality's ennui)is that it goes head-on toward the hypotheses that negate it.

And then reality surrenders to the first warnings, and bends toconceptual violence. Its distinguishing sign is that of voluntary

serfdom. Reality's a bitch! HYPERLINK


thought.html" \l "note15#note15" 15. Contrary to what is said(the real is what resists, that on which all hypotheses come to

crash), reality is not very strong, or at least less and less so.

Rather, reality appears to be ready to operate a disorderlywithdrawal. Full walls of reality crumble - just like the collapse

of Buzatti's "Baliverna," where the smallest crack triggers a

total chain reaction. We can find the decomposed ruins

everywhere - just as in Borges' "Map and Territory." Not only

does reality resist those who still criticize it, but it also

abandons those who defend it. Maybe it is a way for reality to

get its revenge from those who claim to believe in it for thesole purpose of eventually transforming it: sending back its

supporters to their own desires. Finally, reality is perhaps

more like a "femme fatale" than a "bitch." HYPERLINK



12/27

thought.html" \l "note16#note16" 16.

More subtly, reality also gets its revenge from those whochallenge it by, paradoxically, proving that they are right.

Whenever any risky idea, any cynical or critical hypothesisproves to be right, it in fact turns out to be a dirty trick. You are

fooled and disarmed. Your arguments are lamentably

confirmed by a reality without scruples.

So, you may posit the idea of a simulacrum, and yet,secretly, not believe in it, hoping that the real will avenge itself.

The theory is then not necessarily convinced of its own

validity. Unfortunately, only those who are reality fanatics reactnegatively. Reality does not seem to be willing to deny itself,

far from it: all simulacra wander freely. Reality today is nothing

more than the apocalypse of simulation. Consequently, the

reality supporters (who defend reality as if it was a moral value

or a virtue) play, so to speak, the part of those who once were

called the fanatics of the Apocalypse.

The idea of simulacrum was a conceptual weapon againstreality, but it has been stolen. Not that it has been pillaged,

vulgarized, or has become common-place HYPERLINK


thought.html" \l "note17#note17" 17. (which is true but has noconsequence), but because simulacra have been absorbed by

reality which has swallowed them and which, from now on, isclad with all the rhetoric of simulation. And to cap it all,

simulacra have become reality! Today, simulacra guarantee

the continuation of the real. The simulacrum now hides, not

the truth, but the fact that there is none, that is to say, the

continuation of Nothingness.


13/27


14/27

anamorphosis of speed. What happens to the heterogeneity of

thought in a world that has been converted to the craziest

hypotheses and to an artificial delirium? In their accelerated

occurrence, the events have in a sense swallowed their own

interpretation. Things have been cleansed of their ownmeaning. And consequently, they are like black holes and can

no longer reflect. They are what they are, never too late for

their occurrence, but always beyond their meaning. What is

late rather is the interpretation of things. Interpretation is then

merely a retro figure for an unpredictable event.

What to do then? What is there to do when suddenlyeverything fits the ironic, critical, alternative, and catastrophic

model that you suggested (everything fits the model you gave

beyond any hopes you had because, in a sense, you never

believed it could go that far, otherwise you would never have

been able to create it)? Well!... It's heaven! We are beyond

doomsday, in the realm of immortality. All there is to do is

survive. For, then, at this point, the irony, the challenge, theanticipation, and the evil are terminated, just as hope

inexorably dies in front of the gates of hell. In fact, hell starts

here. Hell as an inferno characterized by the unconditional

realization of all ideas: an inferno of reality. We then

understand (see Adorno) that concepts prefer to commit

suicide rather than come to that point.

Something else has been stolen from us: indifference.The power of indifference, which is the quality of the mind, as

opposed to the play of differences, which is the characteristic

of the world. But indifference has been taken away from us by

a world that has become indifferent. Similarly, the eccentricity

of thinking has been taken away by an eccentric world. When


15/27

things and events refer to one another and to their non-

differentiated concept, the equivalence of the world joins and

erases the indifference of thinking. Boredom emerges. No

more confrontations, no more stakes. Just a parting of dead

waters.

How beautiful indifference was in a world that was notindifferent! In a world that was different, convulsive and

contradictory, with stakes and passions. Back then, the

indifference of the mind could turn into a stake or a passion, in

total opposition to the world. It could anticipate the indifferent

future of the world and turn this indifference into an event.

Today, it is difficult to be more apathetic and more indifferent

than the facts themselves. The world in which we operate

today is apathetic, indifferent to its own life, without passion,

and deadly boring. There is no point in being dispassionate in

a world without passions. Being dis-invested in a world without

investment makes no sense. That's how we have become

orphans.Our point is not to defend radical thought. Any idea thatcan be defended is presumed guilty. Any idea that does not

sustain its own defense deserves to perish. But we have to

fight against charges of unreality, lack of responsibility,

nihilism, and despair. Radical thought is never depressing.

This would be a complete misunderstanding. A moralizing and

ideological critique, obsessed by meaning and content,obsessed by a political finality of discourse, never takes into

account writing, the act of writing, the poetic, ironic, and

allusive form of language, the play with meaning. This critique

does not see that the resolution of meaning is right here, in the

form itself, in the formal materiality of an expression. As for


16/27

meaning, it is always unfortunate. Analysis is by its very

definition unfortunate since it is born out of a critical disillusion.

But language on the contrary is fortunate (happy), even when

it designates a world with no illusion, with no hope. This would

in fact be here the very definition of radical thought: anintelligence without hope, but a fortunate and happy form.

Critics, always being unfortunate (unhappy) in their nature,

choose the realm of ideas as their battle field. They do not see

that if discourse always tends to produce meaning, language

and writing on the contrary are always a matter of illusion.

Language and writing are the living illusion of meaning, the

resolution of the misfortune of meaning operated through the

good fortune of language. This is the only political or

transpolitical act that a writer can accomplish.

Everyone has ideas, even more than they need. What

matters is the poetic singularity of analysis. Only this witz, thisspirituality of language, can justify writing. Not a miserable

critical objectivity of ideas. There will never be a solution to thecontradiction of ideas, except inside language itself, in the

energy and fortune (happiness) of language. So the loneliness

and sadness in Edward Hopper's paintings are transfigured by

the timeless quality of light, a light which comes from some

place else and gives to the whole picture a totally non-

figurative meaning, an intensity which renders loneliness

unreal. Hopper says: "I do not paint sadness or loneliness; Ionly seek to paint light on this wall."

In any case, it is better to have a despairing analysis in ahappy language than an optimistic analysis in despairingly

boring and demoralizingly plain language. Which is too often


17/27


18/27

at the same time a supra-conductor of illusion and of the

absence of meaning HYPERLINK


thought.html" \l "note24#note24" 24.. Language is onlysignification's unintentional accomplice. By its very force, it

calls for the spiritual imagination of sounds and rhythms, for

the dispersion of meaning in the event of language, similar to

the role of the muscles in dance, similar to the role of

reproduction in erotic games.

Such a passion for the artificial, a passion for illusion, is

the same thing as the seductive joy (jouissanceHYPERLINK"http://www.egs.edu/faculty/baudrillard/baudrillard-radical-

thought.html" \l "note25#note25" 25.) to undo a too perfect

constellation of meaning. It is also a joy (jouissance) torender transparent the imposture of the world, that is to say

the enigmatic function of the world, and its mystification which

supposedly is its secret. Doing this while perhaps rendering its

imposture transparent: deceiving rather than validating

meaning. HYPERLINK


thought.html" \l "note26#note26" 26. This passion "wins"HYPERLINK


thought.html" \l "note27#note27"27

. in the free and spiritualusage of language, in the spiritual game of writing. And it only

disappears when language is used for a limited finality, its

most common usage perhaps, that of communication. No

matter what, if language wants to "speak the language" of

illusion, it must become a seduction. As for "speaking the


19/27

language" of the real, it would not know how to do it (properly

speaking) because language is never real. Whenever it

appears to be able to designate things, it actually does so by

following unreal, elliptic, and ironic paths. Objectivity and truth

are metaphoric in language. Too bad for the apodicticians orthe apodidacticians! This is how language is, even

unconsciously, the carrier of radical thought, because it

always starts from itself, as a trait d'espritvis-a-vis the world,as an ellipse and a source of pleasure. Even the confusion of

languages in the Tower of Babel, a powerful mechanism of

illusion for the human race, a source of non-communication

and an end to the possibility of a universal language, will have

appeared, finally, not as a divine punishment but as a gift from

God.

Ciphering, not deciphering. Operating illusions. Beingillusion HYPERLINK


thought.html" \l "note28#note28" 28. to be event. Turning intoan enigma what is clear. Making unintelligible what is far too

intelligible. Rendering unreadable the event itself. Working all

the events to make them unintelligible. Accentuating the fake

transparency of the world to spread a terroristic confusion, to

spread the germs or viruses of a radical illusion, that is to say

operating a radical disillusion of the real. A viral and

deleterious thought, which corrupts meaning, and is theaccomplice of an erotic perception of reality's trouble.

Erasing in oneself any remaining trace of the intellectualplot. Stealing the "reality file" to erase its conclusions. But, in

fact, it is reality itself which foments its own contradiction, its


20/27

own denial, its own loss through our lack of reality. Hence, the

internal feeling that all this affair - the world, thought, and

language - has emerged from some place else and could

disappear as if by magic. The world does not seek to have

more existence, nor does it seek to persist in its existence. Onthe contrary, it is looking for the most spiritual way to escape

reality. Through thought, the world is looking for what could

lead to its own loss.

The absolute rule, that of symbolic exchange, is to returnwhat you received. Never less, but always more. The absolute

rule of thought is to return the world as we received it:

unintelligible. And if it is possible, to return it a little bit more

unintelligible. A little bit more enigmatic.

Notes

HYPERLINK


thought.html" \l "text1#text1" 1. "Billancourt," a Frenchautomobile production plant renowned for its repeated strikes,is here Baudrillard's metaphor for the "proletariat".

HYPERLINK


thought.html" \l "text2#text2" 2.Excentrationis the termused in French.


thought.html" \l "text3#text3" 3. The term used in French is

jeu. Jeumeans either game, play or mechanism.

HYPERLINK


21/27


thought.html" \l "text4#text4" 4.Transfert utopiqueis theterm used in French.


thought.html" \l "text5#text5" 5. The term mise en jeu(putting into play) renders the idea of play/game. But it may

also signify the beginning of a process, game, activity (for

example, the biginning of a soccer game or a card game). It

may also connotethat which is at stake (en jeu).

HYPERLINK


thought.html" \l "text6#text6" 6.Alternancein French.

HYPERLINK


thought.html" \l "text7#text7" 7. "Alterity," of alteritein French,

reiterates the notion of "radical otherness" already expressedby Jean Baudrillard in another work. See Marc Guillaume &

Jean Baudrillard, L'Alterite Radicale (Paris: Gallimard, 1994),

still not published in English.

HYPERLINK


thought.html" \l "text8#text8" 8.Sous Tensionin French.HYPERLINK


thought.html" \l "text9#text9" 9.Ont lieuin French meanseither "taking place" (in the sense of happening) or "taking its


22/27


23/27

thought.html" \l "text14#text14" 14.Ennuimeans trouble butalso conveys the notion of "boredom".

HYPERLINK

"http://www.egs.edu/faculty/baudrillard/baudrillard-radical-thought.html" \l "text15#text15" 15.La realite est une

chiennein French.

HYPERLINK


thought.html" \l "text16#text16" 16. A very shaky translation

of: "la realite est peut-etre plutot une sphinge qu'unechienne.".

HYPERLINK


thought.html" \l "text17#text17" 17. The term used in French,

lieu commun, gives the idea of place (literally, a common

place), but also signifies "banality".HYPERLINK


thought.html" \l "text18#text18" 18. Baudrillard here plays on

the term senswhich, in French, means "direction" or"meaning" (it can also mean "sense"). The terms "direction"

and "meaning" are interchangable in this sentence and can be

conbined any way the reader prefers.

HYPERLINK


thought.html" \l "text19#text19" 19. Or "fulfills itself.".

HYPERLINK


24/27


thought.html" \l "text20#text20" 20.Voluntaristein French.

HYPERLINK

"http://www.egs.edu/faculty/baudrillard/baudrillard-radical-thought.html" \l "text21#text21" 21.Depassement.

HYPERLINK


thought.html" \l "text22#text22" 22. or the meaning.

HYPERLINK

"http://www.egs.edu/faculty/baudrillard/baudrillard-radical-thought.html" \l "text23#text23" 23.definitif.

HYPERLINK


thought.html" \l "text24#text24" 24.non-sens.

HYPERLINK


thought.html" \l "text25#text25" 25.joie.

HYPERLINK


thought.html" \l "text26#text26" 26.imposteur, et non

composteur de sens..


thought.html" \l "text27#text27" 27.L'emportein French

means either "winning" or "carrying away with oneself." La

passion l'emportecan thus signify the success of this


25/27

passion over meaning or the fact that this passion has

grabbed meaning and takes it away with itself.

HYPERLINK


thought.html" \l "text28#text28" 28.Faire illusionis also aFrench expression which means "conveying unfulfilled hopes

or promises,".

Baudrillard, Jean. "La Pensee Radicale." Sens & Tonka, eds.,

Collection Morsure, Paris, 1994. Available: HYPERLINK

"javascript:extUrl('http://www.uta.edu/english/apt/collab/texts/r

adical.html')"http://www.uta.edu/english/apt/collab/texts/radical.ht

m.

All material herein Copyright 19972008. European Graduate

School EGS. All Rights Reserved. The source code is owned by the

European Graduate School and is protected by copyright laws and

international copyright treaties, as well as other intellectual property

laws and treaties. The source code is licensed, not sold. All right,

title and interest in the source code (including any images, applets,

photographs, animations, video, audio, music, and text incorporated

into the source code), accompanying printed materials, and any

copies you are permitted to make herein, are owned by the

European Graduate School EGS, and the source code is protected

by United States copyright laws and international treaty provisions.

Therefore, the source code must be treated like any othercopyrighted material.

HYPERLINK "http://www.egs.edu" European Graduate

School EGS Media and Communications Division Ringacker CH-3953 Leuk-Stadt phone: + 41 27 474 9917 fax: + 41 27 474


26/27

9969 web: HYPERLINK "http://www.egs.edu"

http://www.egs.edu.Questions/comments/suggestions to HYPERLINK

"mailto:[email protected]" [email protected] Last modified 04/29/200806:25:09 GMT -05:00;

The URL is HYPERLINK


thought.html"

http://www.egs.edu/faculty/baudrillard/baudrillard-

radical-thought.html.

INCLUDEPICTURE

"http://www.egs.edu/images/main/spacer.gif" \*

MERGEFORMATINET

INCLUDEPICTURE

"http://www.egs.edu/images/main/spacer.gif" \*

MERGEFORMATINET

INCLUDEPICTURE

"http://www.egs.edu/images/main/star.gif" \*MERGEFORMATINET HYPERLINK"http://www.egs.edu/faculty/baudrillard/baudrillard-

radical-thought.html" \l "top#top" \o "Go to the top of this

page" Top of this Page HYPERLINK

"http://www.egs.edu/" \o "European Graduate School EGS


27/27

Homepage" European Graduate School Homepage

HYPERLINK

"http://www.egs.edu/main/sitemap.html" \o "European

Graduate School EGS Sitemap" EGS SitemapINCLUDEPICTURE

"http://www.egs.edu/images/main/star.gif" \*

MERGEFORMATINET

INCLUDEPICTURE

"http://www.egs.edu/im

ages/main/spacer.gif" \*

MERGEFORMATINET

INCLUDEPICTURE

"http://www.egs.edu/im

ages/main/spacer.gif" \

*MERGEFORMATINET

Jean Baudrillard - Radical Thought

Documents

Transcript of Jean Baudrillard - Radical Thought