Subject: Re: Bio #7
From: Jim Rovira (jrovira@drew.edu)
Date: Mon Oct 08 2001 - 13:43:31 GMT
Isn't Baudrillard's idea of simulacrum a bit of a development of
Derrida's idea of the supplement? Otherwise I agree...
Jim
Omlor@aol.com wrote:
>
> Re: # 7 -- Derrida's *Memoires* is correct, although I'm not at all sure what that has to has to do with that Matrix movie starring a human piece of wood named Keanu Reeves...
>
> Derrida's book is, as far as I can see, in no way whatsoever about anything to be found in that traditional and altogether conventional melodrama and its utter adoration of final resolutions.
>
> At least, that's how I saw the film...
>
> Baudrillard, sure, with all its logics of "postmodern simulation." But Derrida? No way. (And *Memoires?" Certainly no way at all.) There is, of course, a large and important set of differences between the two thinkers and between their works. In many ways they are actually opposed to each other. That should be clear to anyone who has read both carefully. *The Matrix* has nothing of Derrida in it. Trust me. It's almost anti-Derridean by its end. But that is another discussion, for another time and place, thankfully.
>
> --John
>
> PS: Yes, 16 is Rushdie, though no one has named the book. But I hear a strange silence concerning 15 (and 8, still).
> -
> * Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
> * UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Mon Nov 12 2001 - 17:22:38 GMT