on those who always get it wrong
Mr. Bartolucci claims
"You allege your argumentation has no grounds in the reduced concept of the show"
A statement such as this has never been mine.
1) My argumentation is founded on quotations from Debord, as well as different justifications taken from my own as well as various writers own conception of what the world is .
2) I maintain that Debord was incapable of thinking of a concept of the show different from the limited mass-media one .
3) This comes to saying that Debord is actually, rightly so, the man who invented the reduced concept of the show. Before his time, before his pretensions to the invention of a general concept of the show, there was no such thing as a reduced concept of the show. I make a point of saying to all those who are interested in logic throughout this world that this doesnít mean that Debord invented the mass-media concept, but that this harmless concept became a limited one thanks to him.
There must have been a day when I said: "There is no way in which my argumentation is founded on the reduced concept of the show"; that was only because one of these individuals who always get it wrong had told me beforehand: "Your argumentation is founded on the reduced concept of the show". I was consequently compelled to answer, being a respectful person: "No, Sir, my argumentation isnít founded on the limited concept of the show. " Following this, a second character who always gets it wrong turns up to me and addresses me sharply: "You maintain your argumentation isnít founded on the reduced concept of the show". This is how things are with those who always get it wrong. A plague on those who always get it wrong.
Just like Tancrède de Hauteville, I am to be found here and there, amidst the uproar where my faithful sword Mirliflore (which has made ten times more victims than Mao Tse Tungís Hundred flowers) is tearing up to smithereens those who donít get it in the glory of holy knowledge. Mirliflore, like any legendary sword worth its salt, bears a blade made from Damascened steel . A mere two thousand years ago, Damascenes knew how to melt steel in the heart of a reflecting furnace. The steel gathered in a Hemispheric clay crucible brought forward a crystallised radiance, orientated towards the centre of the hemisphere. Once it had been unfolded and forged on the anvil, this steel was made up of layers of alloys all different in their capacity, ranging from the hard to the soft, this difference being the result of the hemispheric melting pot crystallisation effect . Swords moulded with blades of such a layered steel joined the forces of hard and soft steel. They slashed as hard steel does; but they also possessed the pliability inherent to soft steel. Perfect weapons they were. Two thousand years ago, Frank blacksmiths, and, more recently, Japanese ones, Have obtained the same results using a different process. Soft and hard iron bars are soldered alternately in their full heat. These bars are then bent in the same way as a pastry baker proceeds with fine layers of pastry. They continue the processes which forging involves, untilÖthey obtain layered steel comparable to Damascened steel, the only difference being that melting pot steel is a very modern technique, an improvement on the one which consists in melting iron in small lumps in a low furnace. The confusion mustnít be made between Damascened steel and fake Damascened, the latter only being a make believe, inlayed one.
These swords and sabres moulded from layered steel, once they had been polished, revealed shimmering ripples, due to the difference in the quantities of carbonate of the polished surface which, owing to this, doesnít have the same reflecting effects over the whole surface. It is believed that legends reporting the accomplishments of flamboyant swords find their root here. Mirliflore among them. My mind is similar to Mirliflore, it is made up of different rates of carbonate, which can not be said of the folk who never get it. Schmiede, mein Hammer, ein hartes Schwert.
"You are debating against this reduced concept"
In no way am I debating against this reduced concept. I am debating against Debordís pretensions of having invented a general concept. Quite the reverse, I recurrently maintain my total indifference, not only regarding this concept, but also regarding what it is laying out. Thereafter, it is conceivable to me one may debate against the object which this concept designs. There is no means to debate against the concept which remains perfectly adequate . Finally, as everyone knows, there is no use to debate against the mass Ė media. One may just as well debate upon the plague.
There is no reason to hold debates against this reduced concept which is, on one hand, perfectly legitimate, and, on the other, totally devoid of interest. To me, the reduced concept of the show is summed up in the repulsive sight of the cocksure July college kid, or to the sight of Mrs. wide cunt Ockrent, in no way are they as tasteful as Mr. Levyís charming wife. The reduced concept of the show as the mass-media see it is a perfect concept for a Thursday Excrement journalist staff member, increasingly excremental and more T (for Tew) than ever.
"This reduced concept promoted universal"
To my knowledge, nobody has ever promoted this simplified concept to that of a general one. As I said previously, quite the reverse has happened, it is Debord, with his pretensions to lay the foundations of a common concept of the show, who has degraded the innocent Mass-media concept to the rank of a reduced concept. Before Debordís so called invention of a general concept of the show, no one would have thought of describing the mass-media concept as the reduced concept of the show. (In the same way, nobody has ever thought of telling André Breton he had a small cock, a good reason for this is that everyone is aware of the fact that Breton was equipped with a king size one. ) Debord claimed to have found a far more general meaning to the show, some mysterious propriety of our society which I have tried in vain for many years to give some content to and failing to do this, or when I did find something, it had nothing whatsoever to do with any kind of show.
According to Mr. B, I would let the task of demonstrating that this reduced concept holds some meaning other than a reduced one to others.
Another far fetched idea.
Iíll say it again for those who never get it: I donít leave it to others to demonstrate that this reduced show concept in its mass- media meaning could hold some wider meaning, which is both totally devoid of interest and absurd. Just like demonstrating that a table can also be a chair.
On the contrary, I leave to others, having been unsuccessful myself, the task of demonstrating that the general concept of the show which would have been invented by Debord holds some kind of meaning, this is far more interesting.
If Debord has really found a concept of the show different from that of the mass- media, then this must be easy to demonstrate by some sensible quote.
Mr. B. grants the fact that one may reasonably (Mr. B. doesnít seem to know the meaning of this word) have doubts as regards the world being, intrinsically, a show.
This is an insult to his idol, Debord, as he relentlessly claimed the reverse. When Debord, the professor of Logic, claims that this world isnít just by chance or superficially spectacular but that it is spectaclist (thesis 14) , he doesnít even realise that a spectaclist world is nothing but a world which produces many shows ;which is inferior, as regards shows, to a show world as such or as a vision of the world . A spectaclist world is superficially (although not by chance) spectacular. It contents itself of producing many shows without a genuine change of its nature transpiring in this process since the days of Marx or Balzac. Debord would like the show to be the picture (yet another picture, however displeasing to Mr. Levy, the abstract writer) of the reign of Economy. There is no such thing as economy on the throne, how could there be a picture of it? Debord is puzzled by the fact that the aim is meaningless and that the development has it all. And this is what communication is all about. In the world of communication, whether on the throne or not, alienated or not, aim is nothing, communication has it all. It would be anti naive and completely utilitarian to say that Trobrianders sail off to sea with the only aim of swapping a few shells. As regards communication, the means is the end. This occurs already today. Hallelujah .
According to Mr. B. , Debord defines the show as a vision of the world which would have become objectivized. Spectacular reality would take place precisely in this precise objectivized area .
Actually, when a vision of the world has become objectivized, when Hitlerís Weltanschauung becomes a reality, when it actually take shape, it is, indeed, quite spectacular.
Nevertheless, according to Adam Smith himself, (the man who invented the invisible hand) , what is specific about the trading world, is that it has no roots whatsoever in any vision of the world. According to A. S. this is precisely what makes it without contest definitely superior to any variety of worlds known to this day. According to A. S. , the trading world would thus put an end to any form of Despotism, except, naturally, the invisible handís Despotism, which is, according to Churchill, the worst one excluding all others. We can here recognise the kind of answer Leibnitz had made to Locke, that is, yes, there was nothing in the understanding which hadnít been previously present in the meaning, except understanding itself.
Thereafter, and what if the trading world was an objectivized vision of the world, in what way does this imply it is a spectacular one? Mr Hitlerís vision of the world is only spectacular with hindsight, in the same manner as the Alps are. Iím doubtful it was spectacular to those who were submitted to it. In what way was the Gestapo or concentration camps a representation, images or shows, this is the question I ask of you. And when this objectivized vision took place, at Nuremberg or at other venues, it was according to the mass-media meaning. Hitler and Goebbels are the men who really invented the mass- media .
Iím a fair man. I can admit that "the world is an objectivized vision of the world", this can be understood in the meaning that the world itself would have become a vision of the world. This remains to be proved. This is precisely the denial that I make. According to me the world is knowledge and not a vision. Vision is precisely what it is lacking. The world is knowledge, but the knowledge is blind. The world is a scientist ; it is unaware of that. The world is a scientist ; it however has no conscience . People are ignorant; they are, nevertheless, conscious. The invisible hand is not only invisible, it doesnít see. What takes the place of a vision in the trading world is nothing but this motto: "If I catch you, Iíll fuck your arsehole " far less elegant is this to the only piece of advice father Leuwen gives to his son:" Drink only what is fresh, my son."
It is true, the world is a conception of the world as it conceives itself alone, what a bastard, without a word to anyone. This is in no way sufficient to make it a vision. Blind conception it remains.
And even if the world was a vision of the world, how could this imply it is spectacular? This also remains to be proved.
Finally, all propaganda is an objectivized vision of the world for the simple reason that it has to possess these means. And it always has. But it is nothing but a specific field of the world and not the world itself. Such is the case with the mass-media; however, this objectivized vision of the world, (that is, which doesnít only reside within a few heads, but which generates an industry) doesnít make it in any way, because of this, the world itself. Here again, only a specific field of the world remains a vision of the world which has become objectivized. Nowadays, the aim of this propaganda is to promote a show of Hedonism and to convince slaves they are individuals comparable to Alcibiades when they are nothing but mass produced clones. The term "objectivized vision of the world "is nothing but a pretentious expression to name propaganda. In all ages has propaganda made great use of the show, one method among others.
This said, any sucker on roller skates looks like a sucker on roller skates. He fools no one. The robots who inhabit the offices and corridors of Canal plus or TF 1, main propaganda corporations, still look like robots. They fool no one. Why do films, serials and t. v. films involving policemen have so much success? Because the cops are the only ones who remain human like amidst all this. They are well accustomed to misery. They are exposed to it permanently, every day, which gives the reason for the numerous suicides among their ranks. They donít look like robots. They can feel compassion or pity, -and not for the remote unwell but for their neighbour-the canal plus robots are excluded from this as the Telethon is the only thing they know of.
According to Mr. B. Economy would exist because the objectivization of a vision of the world would exist.
Just admire the logic of this. There is an ojectivized vision of the world. Therefore economy exists. "Therefore", how many crimes have been committed in thy name.
Mr. B. concedes the point there could be a spectacular illusion. It would consist in the spectatorís persuasion that he is communicating by the means of goods.
What remains to be proved in what way this illusion is spectacular. Why spectacular? Because Mr. B. or Mr. Debord give the title of spectator to the one who believes he is communicating by the means of goods which is nothing but making a request on principle, isnít it?
Actually, this so called spectator doesnít believe he is communicating, he merely wants to communicate. No doubts are left to him which would enable him to believe he is communicating.
According to Mr. B. I would be depriving Economics of its object (Economy) .
However, as I have already said, the object of Economics isnít Economy but communication. As we can see, I never get tired of repeating this and never will.
Economists genuinely believe, with Mr. B. , that they are studying Economy . In this they are wrong, just as Mr. B. is. Finally, it isnít Economy which says "Thou shall earn your daily bread at the sweat of your brow", but Economics.
According to Mr. B. Economy isnít totally devoid of meaning but it means The Law of this world (with a capital L, if you please) .
Economy supposedly characterises what exists, not the law of what exists. If there was something which could characterise the law of this world it would be Economics. This would be nothing but misleading pretension. In the same manner as the laws of physics are the laws of physics, and not the laws of nature, in the way in which Wittgenstein underlined this point, the laws of Economics can be nothing else but the laws of Economics and not the laws of the world, and even less the laws of Economy which doesnít even exist. The laws of Economics claim to teach leaders how to handle communication and not to learn the laws of communication envisaging such things do exist.