K - Nuclear Baudrillard at Perm (Jeff)_2011-0619-210305

8/13/2019 K - Nuclear Baudrillard at Perm (Jeff)_2011-0619-210305

1/12

UTSA Debate Baudrillard

AT: Perm

The affirmatives framework for political action, based on BaudrillardsSilent Majority of the Masses, is rossl! taken

out of conte"t and utili#ed b! the affirmative in order to maintain a cultural sickness of sorts, cumulatin in e"ploitation,

brutali#ation, and annihilation of all life$ The affirmative aims for a world of %virtual immortalit!& in their over'

sinification with the traditional technoloical process of debate, !et rather than the s!stems of oppression reversin

upon themselves, in a fatal act of implosion, the affirmatives pro(ection of artifice onl! serves to maintain and reif! thesesame structures the! secretl! attempt to criti)ue * reducin debate to its most banal form, and incestall! domesticatin

the human species indefinitel! b! wa! of technolo! itself$ This framework reduces all of us to the lowest form of life,

hurlin us even more )uickl! to our inevitable doom$

Baudrillard +-(Jean, Darwins Artificial Ancestors and the Terroristic Dream of the Transparency of the Good. The International Journal of audrillard !tudies "##$%

The idea runnin& throu&h the writin&s of Darwin that natural selection leads to a species capa'le of morally transcendin& natural selection is thorou&hly specious.In aimin& forvirtual .technical/ immortalit! and ensurin& its eclusi)e perpetuation b! a pro(ection into artifacts, the human species is

precisely losin its own immunit! and specificity and 'ecomin& immortali*ed as an inhuman species+ it is abolishin in itself

the mortalit! of the li)in& in fa)our of the immortality of the dead. It is immortali*in& itself as the #ero deree of a livin

species, as an operational artifact which no lon&er e)en o'eys the law of species, ecept the law of artificial species, whose

mortality is perhaps e)en more rapid. As a result, b! oin down these paths of artifice which were supposed to ensure its

indefinite survival, it is perhaps hurtlin even more )uickl! to its doom$

The human species is currentl! domesticatin itself, this time for ood, b! means of its technoloies . It is su'mittin&collecti)ely to the same rituals as insects. !oon it will su'mit to the same controlled techniues of reproduction as the proto*oa,

will inflict on itself the same 'io&enetic(phylo- or onto&enetic% destiny to which it has su'ected others. It no lon&er, in fact, sees

itself as different from the others, in spite of its supremacy. It treats itself as a species that may 'e ruthlessl! e"ploited,

condemned to a brutali#ation and annihilation of its own . /ere a&ain, all the ad)ances it has made and has forced others to

accept ha)e had a re)ersi)e effect upon it. To such an etent that it 0 the &uardian, in its *oos, museums, reser)es and la'oratories,

of condemned species0re&ards itself as a condemned species, and 1eeps an anious eye trained on its 'iospheric destiny.

+/ 0n the words of 1an!e 2est, the affirmative framework has %ot the ame all wron$& 0t is not that debate, or at least

the form of debate the! enae in, serves as a t!pe of arena in which the masses pla! with politics as if it were a ame of

football, rather this sphere of modern debate the affirmative participates in functions as a proph!lactic micro'universe

where the! seek to e"orcise catastrophe in order to reach the hihest level of artificial survival$ 2hile both teams will

concede that this miniaturi#ed artificial world of role'pla!in state action is illusor! * the affirmative inores the fact

that such a world is threatened b! the same accidents as real life, and thus is trapped within a scientific euphoria

destined to embalm, and sacrifice real life in the name of artificial survival$ 3nl! b! wa! of the alternatives e"ternal

re(ection of such a framework can we ever hope to shatter the lass coffin we tell ourselves is a sterile laborator!

Baudrillard +-(Jean, Darwins Artificial Ancestors and the Terroristic Dream of the Transparency of the Good. The International Journal of audrillard !tudies "##$%

This micro'universe see1s to e"orci#e catastrophe 'y ma1in& an artificial synthesis of all the elements ofcatastrophe. 2rom the perspecti)e of sur)i)al, of recyclin& and feed'ac1, of sta'ili*ation and metasta'ili*ation, the elements of

life are sacrificed to those of survival (elimination of &erms, of e)il, of se%. 4eal life, which surely, after all, has the ri&ht to

disappear (or mi&ht there 'e a paradoical limit to human ri&hts3%,is sacrificed to artificial survival. The real planet, presumed condemned, issacrificed in advance to its miniaturi#ed, air'conditioned clone (ha)e no fear, all the earth4s climates are air-conditioned here% which is desi&nedto van)uish death b! total simulation. In days &one 'y it was the dead who were em'almed for eternity+ today, it is the li)in&

we embalm alive in a state of survival. 5ust this 'e our hope3 /a)in& lost our metaphysical utopias, do we have to build this

proph!lactic one56hat, then, is this species endowed with the insane pretension to sur)i)e 0 not to transcend itself 'y )irtue of its natural intelli&ence, 'ut to sur)i)e physically, 'iolo&ically, 'y )irtue of

its artificial intelli&ence3 Is there a species destined to escape natural selection, natural disappearance 0 in a word, death3 6hat cosmic cussedness mi&ht &i)e rise to such a turna'out3 6hat

)ital reaction mi&ht produce the idea of sur)i)al at any cost3 6hat metaphysical anomaly mi&ht &rant the ri&ht not to disappear lo&ical counterpart of the remar1a'le &ood fortune of ha)in&

appeared3 There is a 1ind of a'erration in the attempt to eternali*e the species 0 not to immortali*e it in its actions, 'ut to eternali*e it in this face-lifted coma, in the &lass coffin of iosphere ".

2e ma!, nonetheless, take the view that this e"periment,like an! attempt to achieve artificial survival or

artificial paradise, is illusor!, not from an! technical shortcomins, but in its ver! principle$ 0n spite of itself, it is

threatened b! the same accidents as real life . 6ortunatel!$ 7et us hope that the random universe outside smashes this

lass coffin$ An! accident will do if it rescues us from a scientific euphoria sustained b! drip'feed$


2/12


AT: PermThe alternative by definition can never give way to the permutations efforts of reconciliation, gutting all

solvency for the permutation. Furthermore, attempting to join forces with our alternative of radical otherness

spurs an endless process of excommunication, which is in itself precisely the hypothesis of the transparency of

evil.

Baudrillard 899 (Jean, The Transparency of e)il7 essays on etreme phenomena 8 Jean audrillard+ tr anslated 'y James enedict. 9ondon7 :ew ;or17 >? @a&es ==-="%

To the principle of conjunction and reconciliation stands opposed the principle of disjunction and

irreconcilability. From this confrontation the principle of irreconcilability always emerges triumphant, because by

definition it can never give way to the principle of reconciliation.

The same sort of thing happens in the case of Good ad Evil. The Good consists in a dialectic of Good and Evil.

Evil consists in the negation of this dialectic, in a radical dissociation of Good and Evil, and by extension in the

autonomy of the principle of Evil. Whereas the Good presupposes a dialectical involvement of Evil, Evil is founded on itself alone, in pure

incompatibility. Evil is thus master of the game, and it is the principle of Evil, the reign of external antagonism, that must eventually carry

off the victory.

When it comes to radical otherness between beings, sexes or cultures, we find the same kind of antagonism as in thecase of Evil, the same logic of definitive incomprehensibility, The same bias in favor of foreignness. Is it possible,

then, to join forces with this foreignness? The answer is no, because of the theorem which may be advanced, by

analogy with the behavior of heavenly bodies, according to which bodies and minds are forever drawing farther and

farther away from each other. This hypothesis of an endless process of excommunication, which subsumes the notionof an indissoluble curse, is also, precisely, the hypothesis of the transparency of Evil as opposed to the universal utopia ofcommunication. A hypothesis, therefore, that is everywhere contradicted by the facts. But only apparently so, for in reality the more things seem to become oriented towards the

universal comprehension and universal homogenization, the more unavoidable becomes the idea of an eternal irreducibility whose ineradicable presence is easier to sense than analyze.


3/12


AT: Perm

Baudrillard +; (Jean, Bur !ocietys Jud&ment and @unishment. The International Journal of audrillard!tudies, "##C%

This is why there is such )iolence in &lo'ali*ation, with a system that wants to eliminate any manifestation of

ne&ati)ity and sin&ularity (includin& death, the ultimate epression of sin&ularity%. This is the )iolence of a

society in which conflict is )irtually for'idden. This )iolence mar1s an end to )iolence itself in a way, as it

desires a world free from any natural order that mi&ht &o)ern the human 'ody, seuality, life and death. @erhapswe should replace the word )iolence with )irulence.


4/12


AT: Perm

Baudrillard +; (Jean, Bur !ocietys Jud&ment and @unishment. The International Journal of audrillard

!tudies, "##C%

6hat or who can stop &lo'ali*ation3 !urely not anti-&lo'ali*ation forces, whose real aim is only to slowdere&ulation. The anti-&lo'ali*ation forces ha)e considera'le political influence 'ut their sym'olic impact is

non eistent. The )iolence of the protestors is simply one more e)ent that system will a'sor' while continuin&to control the &ame.

!in&ularities howe)er confound the system. !in&ularities are neither positi)e nor ne&ati)e and they do

not represent alternati)es. They are outside of the system and they cannot 'e e)aluated 'y )alue ud&ments orthrou&h principles of political reality. They correspond to 'oth the 'est and the worst. !in&ularities play 'y

another set of rules which they determine themsel)es allowin& them to stand as impediments to the sin&le-trac1

thin1in& of the dominant mode of thou&ht (althou&h they are only one 1ind of challen&e to the system%.!in&ularities are not inherently )iolent 0 they represent uniue characteristics of lan&ua&e, art, culture, and the

'ody.


5/12


AT: Perm

Baudrillard +


6/12


AT: Perm

Per =ernren and Baudrillard +- (@ostprotest and audrillard http788perhern&ren-resistance.'lo&spot.com8"##$8=#8ean-'audrillard-is-important-for.html%

Jean audrillardis important for the reflection onpostprotest. @ostprotest sometimes proposes a com'ination of

ci)il diso'edience and production of positi)e alternati)es, to create some 1ind of constructi)e or proacti)eresistance. In this tet, howe)er, Baudrillard critici#es the focus on %alternatives& as a wa! to defeat adominant s!stem> instead he suests sinularities. /ere he also critici*es reacti)e protest mo)ements7

& 2ho can defeat the lobal s!stem5 ?ertainl! not the anti'lobali#ation movement whose sole o'ecti)e is

to slow down &lo'al dere&ulation. This mo)ement4s political impact may well 'e important. ut its s!mbolicimpact is worthless. This mo)ement4s opposition is nothin more than an internal matter that the

dominant s!stem can easil! keep under control. Positive alternatives cannot defeat the dominant s!stem,

but sinularities that are neither positive nor neative can. Sinularities are not alternatives$ They

represent a different sym'olic order. They do not a'ide 'y )alue ud&ments or political realities. They can 'ethe 'est or the worst. They cannot 'e Hre&ulari*edH 'y means of a collecti)e historical action. C The! defeat

an! uni)uel! dominant thouht$ @et the! do not present themselves as a uni)ue counter'thouht. !imply,

they create their own &ame and impose their own rules.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Baudrillardhttp://ickevald.net/perherngren/english/postprotest_per_herngren.htmhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Baudrillardhttp://ickevald.net/perherngren/english/postprotest_per_herngren.htm


7/12


AT: PermThe politics the! call for will inevitabl! be co'opted and can never achieve effective chane$ Their link

misunderstands our strate! of indifference as a passive form of nihilism without care * !et, our strate!

is one of positive indifference which allows for true carin, resistance and political chane

Board 899 (6illiam, professor at 6hitman olle&e. losin& down the social7 audrillards hallen&e to ontemporary !ociolo&y. Sociological Theory, >#%, pp. =-=F.%

2or sociolo&ists who ha)e accepted the humanist premises of their discipline, such a proect will appear as thehei&ht of irrationality and irresponsi'ility, and we can ima&ine their incredulity7 an audrillard really 'e

serious a'out this3 Is it rational to thin1 that mass indifference, if this indeed truly characteri*es the climate of

modern culture, is a form of resistance which itself must 'e met with indifference3 And if so, to what

concei)a'le end3 /ow can one remain indifferent to a world full of po)erty, racism, and other forms of socialinustice3 6ouldn4t this only ma1e matters worse, or at 'est allow these pro'lems to continue to fester3 Doesn4t

audrillard, rather than creatin& theoretical possi'ilities for Hconuerin&H a world which has 'ecome indifferent,

in truth only succeed in ma1in& 'oth himself and theory indifferent to, and thus at the mercy of, allpossi'ilities3 audrillard himself does not address, let alone as1, these 1inds of uestions, and ri&htly so,

'ecause they identify indifference with passi)e nihilism or a lac1 of carin&, neither of which is intended in

audrillard4s meanin& of the term. audrillard4s indifference, I shall su&&est, is of an alto&ether different type,and I can thin1 of no 'etter way of descri'in& it other than as apositive indifference, a 1ind of stoic posture that

in)ites attac1 'y Hplayin& dead.H 6hat he proposes is not passi)ity, 'ut an active strate&y desi&ned to lure its

opponent into ma1in& a self-defeatin& mo)e, in effect turnin& the opponent4s own force into a weapon a&ainst it.ontrary to what a literal readin& of audrillard mi&ht infer, indifference does not si&nify an uncarin& attitude,

nor is it inauthentic (that is, audrillard is not ust espousin& a position he in fact does not hold%. Kather, his

indifference is an ironic-and, one mi&ht add, tra&ic-response to a world which he 'elie)es has closed off

)irtually all other forms of resistance. 2or audrillard, care, howe)er hi&hly we )alue this )irtue, is sacrificed inorder to oppose an enemy for whom care no lon&er has any meanin&. At 'est, one can only challen&e the

present order-the simulated order-with asimulated indifference. Bnly such a strate&y mana&es to a)oid, for the

time 'ein& at least, the o)erwhelmin& capacity of this order to coopt the power of resistance for its own ends.


8/12


AT: Perm?haloupka 899(6illiam, Immodest 5odesty7 Antinuclear Discourse, 9ifestyle @olitics, and Inter)ention !trate&ies. International Studies Quarterly, >#%, pp. ?=-?F=.%

Kather than solidifyin& our relations with e)ents and their seuences, lan&ua&e introduces oscillation,

dissem'ly, memory, and waitin&. The attempt to solidify forei&n policy positions thus runs counter to whatoccurs within those positions at their most fundamental le)el. ut instead of makin politics impossible, our

reconition of lanuaes shiftin, contradictor! role enables responses, even if those responses will differfrom those enabled b! the enlihtenment. At this point Hthe selfH 'ecomes important to the post-structuralistposition as well as to my present misreadin& of the lifestyle position. The oscillation and contradiction rearran&e

the role of the spea1er, that most central role in any politics which could emer&e from the enli&htenment. L)en

Hthe simple assertion 4I spea1,H4 contains the spea1er4s (and the statement4s% Hthreatenin& promise of its own

disappearance, its future appearanceH (2oucault, =>$7F%. As the authorial self loses its status, an oscillation'e&ins in politics as well as lan&ua&e. Political speech is undermined+ the eterior, moral, critical distance

promised 'y /a'ermas cannot hold. :either can our commitment to reenact the world we prefer throu&h

alterations of &rammar and synta. ut the same underminin& has happened to structures and authorities whoha)e imposed political forms. Those structures cannot 'e ustified 'y the we' of relationship to (the words%

nature and necessity. The Hfuture appearanceH is uncertain, to 'e sure, 'ut it also threatens all political forms(ustified in this manner. They are eposed 'y the lifestyle critiue.


9/12


AT: Perm%4adical Thouht& is mutuall! e"clusive from a strate! of thinkin evil, or thouht of the ob(ect *

4adical thouht alwa!s assumes the privileed position of the sub(ect

Baudrillard +(Jean, Translated 'y Alison Gin&eras. 2rom Kadical Incertitude, or Thou&ht as Imposter.

The International Journal of audrillard !tudies, "##F%

/enceforth it is no lon&er the human that concei)es the world+ it is the un-human that concei)es us. 6e can

now only &rasp oursel)es from an ome&a point eterior to the human, from o'ects and hypotheses which playthe role of stran&e attractors. 6e are no lon&er a'out disco)erin&, 'ut a'out 'ein& disco)ered. rit ical thou&ht

has already flirted with this type of o'ect, at the limits of the human or the inhuman 0 with archaic societies,

for instance, uestionin& 6estern hu manism. Today we must look be!ond critical thouht> we must look

elsewhere, toward ob(ects that are much more forein to us * carriers of a radical incerti tude upon which

we can no loner impose our own perspectives$

Therefore, it is not a metaphor when theoretical thou&ht incorporates the no tion of uncertainty,antimatter, 'lac1 matter, )iruses, critical mass, or when it in corporates 'iolo&y, micro-physics, and cosmolo&y.

?ritical thouht still presumes a sub(ect that e"plores the world from the privileed position of the

sub(ect and lan&ua&e (e)en thou&h, accordin& to Jacues 9acan, it is lan&ua&e that thin1s the su'ect%, 'utmutual and simultaneous correlations are at wor1 in e)ery area of the same principle of uncertainty.

/omolo&ies reinforce each other without any other definition or )erification than this con)er&ence in which it is

not one of truth that is in)ol)ed, 'ut of a 1ind of o'ecti)e thou&ht, a thouht of the ob(ect in which the su'ectis irrele)ant. 6e certainly shouldn4t trust the su'ect if we want to escape truth. 6e should trust the o'ect and

the filter of the o'ect, in particular the theoretical filters of all these new o'ects that ha)e cropped up from

'eyond our hori*on.


10/12


AT: PermThe permutation attempts to incorporate radical otherness into a s!stem of reulated e"chane, thus den!in all

otherness b! eliminatin the %radical& prefi" tied the alternative itself$ The act of the affirmative advocac!

absorbin the alternative dilutes radical otherness to a concept of difference, mandatin terror and annihilation of

all forms of radical and absolute otherness$ 3nl! b! re(ectin encounter can the other remain other, and the most

viral forms of racism be avoided$

Baudrillard 899(Jean, The Transparency of e)il7 essays on etreme phenomena 8 Jean audrillard+ translated 'y James enedict. 9ondon7 :ew ;or17 >? @a&es ="-=">%

Differences mean re&ulated echan&e. ut what is it that introduces disorder into echan&e3 6hat is it that cannot 'e ne&otiated o)er3 6hat is it that has no place in thecontract or in the structural interaction of differences3

6hat is founded on the impossi'ility of echan&e3

6here)er echan&e is impossi'le, what we encounter is terror. Any radical otherness at all is thus the epicenter

of a terror7 the terror that such otherness holds, 'y )irtue of its )ery eistence, for the normal world. And the terror that

this world eercises upon that otherness in order to annihilate it.

B)er recent centuries all forms of )iolent otherness ha)e 'een incorporated willin& or under threat of force, into a

discourse of difference which simultaneously implies inclusion and eclusion, reco&nition and discrimination . hildhood,

lunacy, death, primiti)e societies 0all ha)e 'een cate&ori*ed, inte&rated and a'sor'ed as parts of a uni)ersal harmony. 5adness, once

its eclusionary status had 'een re)o1ed, was cau&ht up in the far su'tler toils of psycholo&y. The dead, as soon as they

were reco&ni*ed in their identity as such, were 'anished to outlyin& cemeteries 0 1ept at such a distance that the face of

death itself was lost. As for Indians, their ri&ht to eist was no sooner accorded them than they were confined toreser)ations. These are the )icissitudes of a lo&ic of difference.

Kacism does not eist so lon& as the other remains Bther, so lon& as the !tran&er remains forei&n. It comes into

eistence when the other 'ecomes merely different 0 that is to say, dan&erously similar. This is the moment when theinclination to 1eep the other at a distance comes into 'ein&.


11/12


AT: PermWe will win an independent disad and solvency take-out to the permutation absent any other 1NC link scenario

a. The alternative by definition can never give way to the permutations efforts of reconciliation, gutting all

solvency for the permutation. Furthermore, attempting to join forces with our alternative of radical otherness

spurs an endless process of excommunication, which is in itself precisely the hypothesis of the transparency ofevil.

Baudrillard 899 (Jean, The Transparency of e)il7 essays on etreme phenomena 8 Jean audrillard+ tr anslated 'y James enedict. 9ondon7 :ew ;or17 >? @a&es ==-="%

To the principle of conjunction and reconciliation stands opposed the principle of disjunction and

irreconcilability. From this confrontation the principle of irreconcilability always emerges triumphant, because by

definition it can never give way to the principle of reconciliation.

The same sort of thing happens in the case of Good ad Evil. The Good consists in a dialectic of Good and Evil.

Evil consists in the negation of this dialectic, in a radical dissociation of Good and Evil, and by extension in the

autonomy of the principle of Evil. Whereas the Good presupposes a dialectical involvement of Evil, Evil is founded on itself alone, in pureincompatibility. Evil is thus master of the game, and it is the principle of Evil, the reign of external antagonism, that must eventually carry

off the victory.

When it comes to radical otherness between beings, sexes or cultures, we find the same kind of antagonism as in the

case of Evil, the same logic of definitive incomprehensibility, The same bias in favor of foreignness. Is it possible,

then, to join forces with this foreignness? The answer is no, because of the theorem which may be advanced, by

analogy with the behavior of heavenly bodies, according to which bodies and minds are forever drawing farther and

farther away from each other. This hypothesis of an endless process of excommunication, which subsumes the notion

of an indissoluble curse, is also, precisely, the hypothesis of the transparency of Evil as opposed to the universal utopia ofcommunication. A hypothesis, therefore, that is everywhere contradicted by the facts. But only apparently so, for in reality the more things seem to become oriented towards the

universal comprehension and universal homogenization, the more unavoidable becomes the idea of an eternal irreducibility whose ineradicable presence is easier to sense than analyze.


12/12


AT: PermThe permutations inability to let go of the 1ACs subjective will to recon existing reality, continually trying to

solve the harms it originally presented, is itself a technological and managerial reaction to such critical issues the

affirmative attempts to escape

Dreyfus and Spinosa 2003(Hubert L and Charles, Professors at the University of California, Berkeley and Miami University. Further Reflections on Heidegger, Technology,and the Everyday. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, Vol. 23, No. 5, October 2003, 339-349)

As his thinking develops, he comes to the surprising and provocative conclusion that focusing on loss and destruction, as late Romantics

do, is itself a technological reaction to technology (Heidegger, 1977a).It is fully inside the technological style of life. All

attempts to reckon existing reality . . . in terms of decline and loss . . . are merely technological behavior.

Seeing our situation as posing a problem that must be solved by appropriate action is also part of the techno-

logical understanding of instrumentality. The more we feel threatened by technology, the more we seek tomaster it, to turn it into a resource for our purposes (Heidegger, 1977a):

[T]he instrumental conception of technology conditions every attempt to bring man into the right relation to

technology. The will to mastery becomes all the more urgent the more technology threatens to slip from humancontrol.

Heidegger is adamant that no attempt to arrest technology will work. No single man, no group of men, he

told us(Heidegger, 1966),no commission of prominent statesmen, scientists, and technicians, no conference of leaders of

commerce and industry, can brake or direct the progress of history in the atomic age.

K - Nuclear Baudrillard at Perm (Jeff)_2011-0619-210305

Documents

Transcript of K - Nuclear Baudrillard at Perm (Jeff)_2011-0619-210305